User talk:Mackensen/Archive3

Ah. Once again, I have a nice, clean talk page. No comments. No headers. No plaintive requests from vandals. Looks as lovely as newly-fallen snow. I don't suppose it will last either. ~Mackensen, the 8th of December, 2004

Posen
He's back... GeneralPatton 07:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) And the range has been banned GeneralPatton 07:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure he's User:PolishPoliticians, see more at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

Earl of Lennox
You removed (link will break with next edit) "(extinct 1425)" from the above - why? It went extinct after the 9th Countess, and then her four sons (in unrecorded and indeterminate order) died...

James F. (talk) 03:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sir Alan Stuart, the son of the 9th Countess of Lennox, is the father of the "first" Earl of Lennox (presumably of the second creation). But the 1st Earl of Lennox was illegitimate, so he could not have inherited the Countess's dignity directly. I would conclude, then, that the title became extinct upon Lady Lennox's death in 1459. -- Emsworth 00:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image copyrights
Thanks for uploading Image:Palmerston.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much,   &mdash; Edwin Stearns | Talk 22:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Peers by Decade
I don't think it's really necessary to end those peers by year charts with Template:end box. Instead, just stick a |} on the end - it's more better, methinks :) ugen64 04:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lord Granville Somerset
Re. moving this page to Granville Charles Henry Somerset: It just seemed to me more logical - after all, "Lord" isn't a title in the same way as a peerage, and one doesn't title articles "Mr W.E. Gladstone", does one? After you raised the question I tried to find whether a naming convention had been laid down for Dukes' and Marquesses' sons, but in vain - is there one? Of course, please feel free to move it back if I'm going against accepted practice. Donald (Opera hat), 17.28 15th December 2004 (GMT)

Image tag
Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:


 * Image:Earl_of_aberdeen.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?

You can use   if you wish to release your own work under the GNU Free Documentation License,    if you wish to release your own work to the public domain,    if you claim fair use of someone else's work, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. (And if you know exactly what this means and are really tired of the constant reminders, please excuse me. They will stop once the tagging project is complete.) Thanks so much. Denni &#9775; 03:47, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

P.P.S. - You can put the shotgun down. This is not spam. I actually stopped at your userpage with the express intent of delivering this request. :) D~

Michigan geography
I replied to you on User talk:Bkonrad. older &ne; wiser 22:52, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004
How did you count the votes on this? It was 20 delete/8 keep/10 transwiki by a conservative count, and 22/11/10 by a liberal count&mdash;hardly a consensus for anything, and in hung votes like that the usual practice is to keep&mdash;at least, that's what I do when the result is inconclusive. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 17:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Transwiki explains the process. I'm not sure it should be transwikied, though; 30/8 and 33/11 certainly don't display real consensus, and they're slightly short even of the 80% guideline for "rough consensus". Obviously I'm not the most impartial observer, since I voted to keep it, but I think on a VFD debate where I honestly didn't care whether it was kept or deleted, I wouldn't do anything with a tally like that; it would be certain to raise a fuss. Recounting only the votes that gave a reason (thus negating at least some of the purely political voting) might give you a more meaningful result. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 17:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Although I voted to delete, I would be satisfied with the page being transwikied. I defintely don't think it belongs in Wikipedia, but it may have some use elsewhere. As for the vote, 75% is about the maximum you'll find on a politically charged topic such as this one. Carrp 18:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It has been listed to be transwikied on Votes for deletion/Old. When that'll actually happen I don't know. Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What is the final status of this? I'm unclear on how the proportions amount to consensus.. In other news, is it possible to restore the talk pages? They were at least somewhat important in establishing where the lists came from Tarek 00:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels
That brings us to five blocks on Christmas Willy on Wheels. You're running a little behind the pack :) -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wynn Baronets
Wow, it looks like an actual article now! It's legible and everything! I'm stunned. Good work. ^_^ Think I'll withdraw my delete vote... P M  C  18:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (that should have been signed)
 * Sounds like a plan. Merry Christmas, by the way! P  M  C  18:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An apparent snarl in a line of succession
During my work on the various Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports articles, I came across what looked to me like a father and a son with nearly the same name who had both been inserted into the line of succession in the same place; I left a note on Talk:Hugh Bigod (Justiciar), but since you noticed my work I assume you're knowledgeable about this kind of thing so I'm giving you a heads-up on the problem I ran into. Bryan 03:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Slow Fixes!
Your message on my talk page was much more cooled headed, I wish you would've used that one on the Village Pump, which everyone reads. How do you think this can be fixed? My test was to bring this question up, to show the nature of a wiki. Can it be fixed? To some extent, I think so, but never fully, in my opinion. But I think if we're all astute and keep an eye on recent changes we can stop most of these little stupid things from appearing in articles by people who intended to betray the trust of Wikipedians. bernlin2000 &infin; 23:20, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Mackensen. Who is Chris Ducat and what has he been up to lately? Re: .  See also User_talk:Cyrius and User_talk:Gadfium.  -- Curps 05:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Commons
Hi, could you please add a copyright tag to your nice photo of Greetsiel? Thx --Bdk 05:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking
Everyking only made 2-3 reverts on Pieces of Me. Although there were more than two edits, he changed around pieces of various paragraphs, a sign of attempting a compromise, so this does not count. The block should not have been restored. 172 09:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR
for the help in enforcing the 3RR. --fvw *  16:30, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Colored peers
Hi, I'm creating a series of articles on colored hereditary peers and baronets. While there seems to be several Indians that were granted baronetcies I can only find one hereditary peer Baron Sinha of Indian extraction. There seem to have been no peers or baronets of African extraction however. Do you happen to know of any other hereditary peers of non-white extraction?

Further, it is not very clear what happened to the title of Baron Sinha after the death of the First Baron. The 2nd Baron Sinha was deemed the product of a polygamous marriage and was also an Indian citizen, both of which would have disqualified him from the peerage. Do you know if the title of Baron Sinha of Raipur is extant? Thanx,

--Notquiteauden 22:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

King Tawhio
Hi there, saw your comment re this article, needing NPOV'ing. I rereadit and corrected a few typos but it seems pretty neutral to me, unpalatable maybe but then, it was an unattactive periodin history, particularly if you were on the Brown end. Cheers ping 23:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking's RFAr
If you feel so strongly about the ignoring of Everyking's emails as you said on IRC last night, you may want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision. You may also want to get in private contact with one of the arbitrators either through IRC or email and show them the email transcripts if you feel you still haven't been heard out; a summary of their content may be too vague. Johnleemk | Talk 05:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reverts to admin board
I'm confused about why you reverted my comments to the admin board. It looks like you added comments by OneGuy, but why don't those comments show up in the history as added by him? Is there a problem with the database? --Viriditas | Talk 06:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, but it still doesn't explain why I can't see the comments in the history as added by OneGuy. Is this just a bug in the database? --Viriditas  | Talk 06:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well, the appropriate question in this case, is to ask you if you yourself can see an edit history link (diff) that shows him adding the comment you restored.  I've actually seen this happen before. --Viriditas  | Talk 06:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe I only did that once. I trust you did not get my e-mail? Everyking 22:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The request in the e-mail was for you to delete the e-mails from the wiki. The case is over, that kind of evidence cannot be considered anyway, and it is personally insulting to me to post that publicly. Everyking 22:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the e-mail page. Unless the Simpson quote can be worked into the article context, I feel it is more appropriate for Wikiquote. And no, I'm not going to forget about the things you did. Everyking 16:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not on a second chance because I never used up a first chance. I can't believe you'd even try to defend your actions. Blocking someone is a severe, severe insult. To deprive an honest contributor of the right to do volunteer work? I won't even block vandals anymore, because I've learned what it feels like, but even before that I was always very reluctant to block even an anon under any circumstances. And then publishing the e-mails, and expressing some kind of feigned outrage at my fury? Who would not have been furious at such an injustice? Everyking 19:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can't take everything a person says in a state of blind rage seriously. Nevertheless, you did two things that caused real, deliberate harm to me in practical terms, whereas all I did to you was say some crude and harsh things when I was very emotional and not thinking normally, and I said those things in reaction to what I think most people would consider an injustice. Everyking 20:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They were just deleting text. Not only is that easy to do, but it's destructive. So why would I sympathize? I have never reverted serious contributions, and I never would. In fact, as an inclusionist, I tend to be quite conservative and careful when it comes to using reverts. Everyking 20:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My view isn't the only correct one. Other people have made useful changes, and I'm sure if someone would work with me on the articles from an inclusionist standpoint I would have no problem radically reworking the text if it was deemed necessary. But I am not reverting anyone now in any case. I am content to abide by the results of the polls that are currently in progress, even though some are going against me. If you have an opinion on the matter, you might want to vote. Everyking 20:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

succession boxes
Medieval England. 14th century. Apparently, the Earl Marshal wanted to make my life hard. Henry of Grosmont, Duke of Lancaster - look at the succession box at the bottom, it's very ugly. Check all the Lord High Stewards - I had to make many of theirs ugly too (the reason Lord High Steward and Earl of Leicester are together is because the two positions were inherited at the same time, down the same line). Any suggestions on making the tables actually useful? Thanks, ugen 64 03:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the vote should not end so soon. There is still the possibility that it could swing the other way. Everyking 01:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)