User talk:Proteus/Archive 4

Gas Petrol
This was a compromise. I did not change it back to Gasoline or some other similar name. Your revert created further antagonism was in direct opposition to any compromise. There is no reason this should be one side against the other. It should remain a mixed name until the debate is solved. Many of us believe rules were violated in order to change it from Gasoline to Petrol--until this debate is solved, please leave it as it is. I'm sure you'll find that most people would rather have compromise than discord.  &#08492; astique &#09660; talk 21:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why don't you simply change it to Petroleum Gasoline as someone suggested. It will in all likelihood and very probably end the debate completely.

Halibutt 3RR
As I wrote, the acussation is baseless, it was 4 reverts over 2 days. Although I consider the issue silly, Halibutt is far from the only blameless here. Other respected Wikipedians seem to have made the same mistakes as him (just look above his entry). I don't think that blocking them all would be useful, instead, encouragment to use the Talk (which I linked) and create a better policy on voting would be more constructive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Blocking such a valuable user as Halibutt seems as much POINT to me as him breaking the 3RR. Besides, if you followed the matter you would see the dispute is not about 3RR but about the errors in the voting policy and Gdansk/Vote. While I appreciate your help, I don't think blocking him is helpful, besides, it favoursies the other party in this dispute (Chris). And blocking them both, and their helpers is even worse. Please, use their talk and convince them to talk instead of revert. I was making headways, but blocking any one of them may be viewed as favoursim by others, and that will destroy the compromise we are working to build. Besides, both sides claim immunity to 3RR due to Gdansk/Vote and I see no policy which would allow us to easily determine if they are right or wrong - and if they are wrong (which would legitimize blocking Halibutt) we would also have to block Chris and serveral of their helpers. You see the quagmire? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not involved in this except trying to reach a compromise. Either both parties are guilty and should be blocked (Chris violated 3RR also, see note above Halibutt's case) or neither. Or refer this to ArbCom. Or drop this matter, warn both users on Talk and help me fix the policy. Oh, your point is that 3RR is above all others. Is it? If so, plase block Chris alongside Halibutt and I won't say another word. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I don't have time to read up on details of blocks/unblocks (night, work tommorow, etc.). So if you want to 'win', you can block him soon as I will be asleep. But I ask you to consider this matter from my arguments above, and keep in mind that Halibutt is a user who is contributing valuable info on daily basis. This recent Gdansk/Vote is a bane, and I asked him again and again not to scoop to 3RR-violators level. I'd support block on him to bring him back to his senses, but if so, this should be applied to all involved parties as well (i.e. to Chris who broke the rule as well). Otherwise it will create an impression that we don't judge everybody equal (Chris can break the rule quoting Gdansk/Vote immunity, but Halibutts gets blocked for the very same action). And from talking to him I know he is getting the very same feeling - he tells me he is just mimicking Chris, yet everybody is accusing him on being the only wrongdoer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Proteus, there are questions waiting for you to answer in 3RR. Halibutt 08:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Views
Your opinions are earnestly sought on |Template for deletion:Crowns. To put it simply, there were various lists on crowns and state symbols buried on files, hardly touched, and full of unwritten articles. I created a series of I'd say thirty articles on crowns, types of crowns, crown jewels etc, at considerable time and effort. I created a provisional template to link the articles together, which I planned, once I had all the information in place, to separate into a series of templates as there was too much information for one large one.

SimonP, who has been waging war on templates for ages (usually as a minority of one, through he usually forces his opinion on pages - such as his deletions of the Template:Commonwealth Realms from articles on Commonwealth Realms - by wearing people down on the issue) nominated the template for deletion. While some users have praised the template for creating a workable themed group with a visual unity via the template, a couple of people are determined to delete the template and use their beloved, hideously ugly, lists, the same lists that had proved to be a dead end for all these articles before.

The antics of SimonP makes me wonder why bother doing any serious work here, when all one get is attempts by a small number of people to replace professionally laid out information by visually unattractive, frequently complicated and because of the ease of edits, perrennially inaccurate long lists. I would very much like to hear your views on the matter on the TfD page linked above. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 21:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yoghurts my eyes
OK fine, at least you're not yelling at me. ;-)  hydnjo talk 23:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks sir. And now I celebrate the event by re-categorizing peers! (rolls eyes) Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Royal consorts and monarchs
hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free cheers Antares911 00:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lord De la Warr
Wikipedia should be conducted by reason, not by orders. You have supplied none. If there is a policy or guideline, please supply a link to it. Septentrionalis 14:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Margaret of Mar
Her constituency biography claims that she's #31, while Rayment says #30. Also, thePeerage places Lionel Walter as the 29th, not the 28th as Rayment claims, which again makes Margaret the 31st. I'm not sure what we should do in this case. Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 10:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking for the extra earl as well, and came up empty. Fine by me to leave her as 30th unless we find something else. Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair
Please see Talk:Tony Blair where I want to open a discussion on where "Tony" comes in the intro. David | Talk 23:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I generally oppose page protection.
However, I think some admins disagree with the page you cite. Check out this post for collusion over getting the "right" page protected.. I know other admins who also colluded to protect a version whose content they preferred, when vandalism was NOT the issue.--Silverback 14:31, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * We should distinguish between what admins have the "power" to do and what they are "entitled" (your word) to do. Admins should feel no sense of entitlement.  Their powers are a public trust and should be used judiciously.  What did you think of the admin's plans I pointed you to above?--Silverback 14:40, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you thought the "wrong page" article was relevant, but since you suggested I read it, I did. The page was condescending in its assumption that there will always be people who think it is the wrong page that is protected, as if admins were always doing the best they could do.  I agree that most admins are doing good work.  However, there is no excuse for such condescension on that page, and there are many times when it is no coincidence which page is protected, and furthermore, I just happened to have a timely counter-example to the assumptions of that page.   Note, I did not complain about which page was protected, although it just happens to be the one that 172 violated the 3RR rule to get.  I complained that it was protected at all, so why did you think I needed to read this "wrong page' article?  I thank you for it however, as I have directed the admin planning the above abuse to that page.  Hopefully, it makes a difference.--Silverback 14:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

observations
Your observations on the proposed move of deceased consorts to their consort names rather than the academic standard maiden name/title would be welcome. Otherwise we could very soon find outselves having Mary of Modena and Mary of Teck as Queen Mary and Queen Mary, Elizabeth of York and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as Queen Elizabeth and Queen Elizabeth. And Catherine of Aragon, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr as Queen Catherine, Queen Catherine and Queen Catherine! The user wanting to make the change is very genuine about it but doesn't seem to understand the reason why consorts are referred to by maiden name/title rather than consort name. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 29 June 2005 01:14 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians
Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 20:40 (UTC)

Surname Law
I didn't feel the need to respond to your recent comment on Talk:Prince Harry of Wales on that page, but I am surprised and curious about such a law that requires one to take the father's surname. Is the law frequently broken? -Acjelen 5 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

Earl of Wessex
I wonder if you might be interested, in light of List of Earls, in having a look at Earl of Wessex itself. I think the article, as it stands, wants a complete refactoring, but I'm unsure on how to do it. We can't have a movie, a royal, and a feudal title on the same page, can we? Mackensen (talk) 6 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)

Richard Harvey
This guy is unbelievable. I reupload a version of his image at Arthur Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington without the caption, and he cries copyvio. Even though his original image didn't have an embedded caption. Yuck. I am going to keep his version of the image out of the article, though - this is ridiculous! john k 7 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

opinion sought
I have re-opened the issue of the royal stub at. I think having it produce a noble link is farcical. Those who did it originally were no doubt well meaning but I don't think they really understood what they were doing. Nobility and royalty are not the same. Your opinions would be welcomed.

Fear ÉIREANN SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint)  7 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)

Sneaked in change to naming conventions
Someone added in a sneaky edit into the Naming conventions (names and titles) last April changing the rules to be used for the Queen Mother. Another user spotted it and pointed it out to me yesterday. I removed the offending edit, which had no consensus behind it, merely a unilateral edit. (It may not have been noticed because Lulu was messing around later and had his changes reverted. People may not have noticed that before then another more serious change was made.) However User:Antares911 is not happy and is accusing me of changing Wikipedia policy, whereas in fact I was restoring it to the agreed convention. Your opinions would be welcome. Fear ÉIREANN SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint)  17:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep an eye out
Keep an eye out. User:Bill Thayer has joined the no honorifics campaign. He deleted a lot of His/Her Majesty, His Holiness etc from articles. I have rolled all I could find back. Fear ÉIREANN SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint)  17:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And a few months later I notice the whole ridiculous nonsense has been removed.... It was very strange that Pius XII should be articled as His Holiness, but not Pius VI; George V as His Majesty but not George III..... Bill 18:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A user
I believe you expressed concern previously, regarding User:Matjlav - well he's now adding succession boxes for, of all things, the United Kingdom order of precedence. 140.247.23.247 19:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC on SlimVirgin

 * I have removed some entries under the "evidence of disputed behaviour" that had been inserted by another editor that went beyond the original intent of the RFC. I have ammended the summary of the RFC to list its two specific goals: that SlimVirgin's edit contains too many errors to be reinserted into the article and that she has held herself above any criticism of her edit. There seemed to be a misunderstanding of the scope of the RFC. Hopefully this clarifies. FuelWagon 18:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

rollback
Please don't use rollback except when fighting vandalism, since that is it's only intended function. -- Netoholic @ 20:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

NHL Lockout in news headlines
Why does this news keep getting removed? It's important, considering A) the economic implications (2 billion USD in loss revenue already), B) effects NHLers participation in the 2006 Winter Olympics and Euro leagues, C)the end to an unprecdented cancellation of an entire season in North American professional sport. I think we're making a big mistake by not including this news item. --Madchester 20:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

It was a frontpage news story on various news outlets globally: BBC News, ESPN, Globe and Mail, etc. and front page material on the likes of the New York Times and CNN.

So you're saying 2 billion USD in lost revenues is just trivial?

Also the details of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement will influence other pro sports in North America, namely baseball (which is the only one without a salary cap) and the NBA (who is trying to work out a new CBA to avoid a lockout just like the NHL). --Madchester 20:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Eras vote
Please explain why you think this sentence is not true: "The use of one era style over another can often be controversial." Kaldari 20:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by your comment. Do you honestly contend that era styles have not been controversial. Are you not aware of the endless wars and debates that have been raging over the issue for the past several months? I can point you to countless examples: just look at Jesus, List of kings of Persia, Parthia, or any of the 100+ other articles that have suffered this debate recently. I can literally give you a list of dozens if it will convince you of this statement's veracity. Kaldari 20:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts
Would it behoove you to please explain the rationale for your reverts, especially here: - unless somehow British English spells already as aleady?

As for Yogurt, the original author used American English consistently, and the article was using American English (as well as Imperial units) until User:Jguk changed styles here (using a deceptive edit summary), without consensus, and yet, curiously you failed to revert that.

And lastly, I object to your use of the the admin rollback button on non vandalism edits, especially with no reason given for the reverts.

Sortan 18:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)