User talk:Proteus/Archive 6

Rt Hon
Did you even bother to read my reasons? Don't just revert things without the courtesy of saying why. "Perfectly correct" is an assertion, not an explanation. JackofOz 00:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

An apology is in order. I've now checked out what you say about Rt Hon and PC and it turns out you are entirely correct. Turns out you know something after all! Seriously, I'll chalk this up to experience. And next time you correct me, I'll pay more attention. Thanks. --Irishtimes 13:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've checked in my Debrett's, and it seems that "the Right Honourable" is treated differently from "the Honourable", which I didn't realize. On page 219 there's an example that reads "The Reverend the Hon John Brown", so I assumed the same was true for "the Right Honourable". But on page 220 we have "The Most Reverend and Right Hon the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury/York".

Date Formats
Proteus, it's not necessary to change the order of day and month in a date, as it will always appear in the preferred format of the reader. Cheers JackofOz 23:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Patronising you, or anybody, is the last thing on my mind, Proteus. I apologise if that was what come through.  I was simply trying to be helpful and friendly, in the same way that others have helped me in the past by making useful suggestions about things that I may not have been aware of.  Civility is something I try to practise at all times, and I'm not one for holding grudges about past disagreements.  Our Wiki-relationship seems to have got off on the wrong foot, but I sincerely hope that it will be a positive and harmonious one despite that.


 * About Beecham's places of birth and death:


 * You're dead right that the introduction should show the dates, but not the places.
 * However, the Style guide also says the following: "Locations should be included in the biography portion of the body article. For example, "(February 12, 1809 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England – April 19, 1882 in Downe, Kent, England)" should be separated to "(February 12, 1809–April 19, 1882) ... He was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England ... He died in Downe, Kent, England". "
 * By removing the St Helens and London information from Beecham's introduction, but not following through and putting it where it belongs in the main text, you've risked losing that information altogether. Leave it to me, I'll fix it.  Cheers JackofOz 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi mate,

You may remember the war on styles that was waged some time ago and the eventual compromise reached which meant that styles (Holiness, Majesty, Royal Highness, etc) are no longer used at the start in royalty articles. A series of templates were created to enable users to warn other users who attempt to reinsert styles into articles that that is no longer WP policy. However a user who is trying to get a whole series of templates deleted has nominated them on the WP:TFD for deletion. I am thoroughly fed up having to defend necessary templates from the minority of deletion police on WP who seem to act as a group: one nominates, then the rest all vote to agree with them. All help to defend the necessary templates in the styles series gratefully received. Thanks. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 19:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Churchill
Hmm, did you revert back my edit on Churchill? May I ask why? --Anittas 11:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you didn't revert my changes; you just added a hyphen to his name - something I had nothing to do with. Why did you then say that you reverted the article, when in fact, you didn't? Weird... --Anittas 11:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cool. NP. --Anittas 11:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR notice
Please note that you performed three reverts at Glenys Kinnock in 24 hours (hist). That you used the admin rollback button, which is meant to be used against vandalism only, does not help. Please refrain from this kind of actions in the future. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And please note that while your third revert was a bit different than the other two, they are to be grouped together because each time you undid the removal of the word "Baroness" which seesm to be the key of the dispute. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Your recent response at Talk:Glenys Kinnock was a tiny bit too strong for my taste. I don't feel inclined to take it further but I just wanted to let you know that some other editors might respond to the same comments by making a complaint. David | Talk 21:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go
I'm sorry to see you go, Proteus. I sympathise completely. We seem to send too much time in here explaining the bleeding obvious to the those who have little grasp of fact but a conviction of their own infallibility. I've spent the last few days debating whether to quit Wikipedia also. Sometimes it feels as though it is not worth the effort anymore. Quality is being destroyed by ignorance, rampant deletionism, and far too many fools. Many of thebest contributors have just given up on the project in frustration. Take care and thanks for all the contributions. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 00:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is no excuse however to use administrator's privileges (like the rollback button) in matters you disagree about. I counted at least 19 admin rollbacks to well-meaning edits by a large chuck of users who do not agree with Proteus's terminology/spelling. That is abuse administrator privileges.


 * And calling people who disagree with you "idiots" and the like, definitely speaks more about one's own character than that of your opponents.


 * PS I am an uninvolved party, it was today I stumbled unto this user and never encountered him on Wikipedia. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Jtdirl. I find that my willingness to edit here comes and goes depending on my mood. Lately I've just kept my head down and edited minor politicians&mdash;stuff where no one gets in your way. I wish you weren't leaving, but I understand why. If you do decide to come back, I trust I'll be here to welcome you. Best regards, Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, your sentiments are much appreciated (FearÉIREANN and Mackensen, not Oleg Alexandrov, obviously...). I've had a nice break (my departures never seem to last very long), and luckily my life is a lot less stressed now than it was earlier this year, so hopefully I should be primed and ready to go (and hopefully be a bit more understanding). I've been thinking long and hard about why I get so frustrated, and I've come up with something on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage which I hope could make all our lives easier. Proteus (Talk) 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology
Apology accepted, Proteus. Thanks for making the effort. Cheers JackofOz 20:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings
Thanks for leaving the message on my talk page - absolutely no hard feelings, and I'm glad you're back. I do appreciate all the work you've done on peerage pages. David | Talk 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Lord Owen – territorial qualification
Proteus, you seem to be quite an authority on peerages. Unfortunately I've forgotten the question I wanted to ask, so for the moment how about this one?

Yesterday I changed the page on Lord Owen as someone had his title as Baron Owen of the City of Plymouth (which is actually what they call him at Liverpool University). I was wondering what the correct territorial qualification (after the comma) is. In the List of Life Peerages is says "of the City of Plymouth", but don't they usually list a county? I know Plymouth is a UA now, but in 1992 it would surely have been, "of Plymouth in the County of Devon." Is this an error that's crept in because of Liverpool University? JRawle 13:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Help please!!!
Hi Proteus - I know you know a lot about these things - could you help? There's some ambiguity over Diana, Princess of Wales's Scottish titles after divorce - it's under the Diana, Princess of Wales talk page under Confusion over titles and brief querie (Princess Charles, the Duchess of Rothesay - Princess Diana, the Duchess of Rothesay). Thanks!

Prince Albert Victor
Can you please help with question over dukedom on Prince Albert Victor talkpage.

Katherine FitzGerald, Countess of Desmond
If you say that the title Lady Desmond is correct, I don't argue - but she was known in her day as the Old Countess, and is referred to as such in Irish history books. I don't know what the distinction is and, after a look at your talk page, am happy to defer to you, my liege. I wonder what your view is on the title itself? In reverting my changes to restore those formalities, you've removed significant improvements to the article. Why not just leave me a message, rather than execute a reflex revert? Substance trumps form.--shtove 19:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't received your reply, so I've reverted to my substantial edits, but deleted countess/Lady Desmond and replaced the terms with her married name Fitzgerald. Please don't change without discussion. I wonder if English peerage rules are appropriate to this subject - perhaps you'll have a view on other 16thC. Irish titles? The Fitzgerald dynasty in Munster had odd hereditary titles: White/Red/Green Knights, Seneschal of Imokilly etc. - a chivalric law unto themselves, until tamed by savage stroking.--shtove 02:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - it makes sense and has cleared up the point. I'll be glad to reinsert Lady Desmond - I changed it without realising it was your edit, thinking it was something I'd originally inserted a few weeks ago. It's not a good idea to keep on editing when the eyeballs need a rest. On Fitzgerald - it is simply the more common usage, although, if the O-s and Mac-s surnames are a precedent, the capital G should be commonly retained. I still wonder about the odd hereditary titles in Ireland - no doubt the Irish peerage originated from English forms, but a distinct practice did emerge in the 15thC. (probably owing to estrangement from England following the Black Death and extending through the Wars of the Roses), and I'm not sure it was ever entirely corrected after the Tudor conquest. After all, the hereditary Knight of the Glin is still swanning around Limerick.--shtove 18:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Emperor of India
Hi Proteus, please can you help with the question under Talk:Emperor of India about the Royal cipher "R.I" not being used for consorts. Many thanks!

Prince Charles
... and please also the "Earldoms" discussion on Prince Charles's talk page ... sorry to hassle you but you know an awful lot!

George V succession box
Hi Proteus, could you please take a look at the succession box for George V? I tried to change it (explanation on Talk page of that article) but got lost as I don't know how these things work. Also MANY thanks for your help on Albert Victor, Emperor of India and Prince Charles questions quoted earlier... where DO you get the information?!

Prince Peter of Yugoslavia
I would like to know your opinion on Prince Peter of Yugoslavia being a prince - is he? Cooldoug111 argues he is on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29 but I argue he isn't since the monarchy has been abolished in Yugoslavia and theyre only styled by courtesy. Whats your view? Many thanks.

WP:AN
Hi, Proteus. I've just mentioned your recent reverts of the ducal pages on WP:AN, here. I thought I ought to let you know so you can respond if you wish. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

Most Noble
For anyone interested in defining future policy on this subject in a definitive way I have instigated a debate here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) Giano | talk 10:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to second that it would be helpful if you weighed in on the debate there. Mackensen (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
Kindly advise why you keep inserting "The" in the title of the Queen Mother prior to her marriage. She was the daughter of a baron, the lowest rank of the peerage, and surely plain "Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon." Masalai 08:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea where you got the idea that she was the daughter of a baron &mdash; her father was the 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, which the article quite clearly states. The correct style is "The Lady", and it's hardly my fault if you don't know that. Proteus (Talk) 09:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're right, Proteus, but do you have a reference for that? I didn't know children of peers entitled to Lord or Lady in front of their name used The. But I suppose it's consistent with The Honourable, and with oldest sons who use one of their father's titles. This page from the DCA doesn't say specifically, but seems to imply "The" shouldn't be used in this case . --JRawle 12:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's in Debrett's Correct Form. (And you can't pay any attention to what the Government says. They haven't a clue.) Proteus (Talk) 12:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't the Earl of Strathmore in 1900 when she was born. That is the operative date. Masalai 13:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Check the link in the article to the Wikipedia item on the Earl of Strathmore. And try to remain civil. Masalai 13:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (a) Why on Earth would it be the "operative date"? (b) He still wasn't a baron. (c) If she were the daughter of a baron she wouldn't have "Lady" before her name at all, regardless of whether you think it should have a definite article or not. (d) Please go and read up on the Peerage before lecturing me. Proteus (Talk) 13:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Make your mind up!
I thought you were insisting Most noble had to stay in - somewhere - and changes be explained? I'll leave you to implement the changes. Giano | talk 19:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want to see the peerage looking creditable, and to achieve that there has to be some huge changes - we shall have to think where we go from here. The anti-monarchists here and their like are not going to look at the daft stubby peerage pages for much longer and say nothing - so those of you who want to see a reasonable balance are going to have to compromise - I suspect that will be dispense with the non-notable to save the rest (i.e. those who at least made it to be local  Lord lieutenant or won a couple of medals) or else expand those non informative pages away from hatches, matches and despatches and find something notable to say about them.  The British peerage, deprived of the House of Lords  are now the same as  any of the  nobility of Europe, save for the fact their breeding is often a lot less noble.  Do not blame other wikipedia editors blame the British elected government. Giano | talk 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then put in the article . He took his seat in the House of Lord on 32nd Jan. 1895, and in his maiden speech said.......................  If the subject did not ever speak then I think one has to consider...........well I'm sure you know the answer.  I strongly feel, the writing is on the wall if you and the peerage brigade do not, wake up,  meet the others half way at least you'll loose.  The time to create a page is when there is sufficient information to fill a page.  Take for instance Andrew Bedford's page, he has achieved a number of things been a successful blood-stock agent, overcome a terrific accident, runs one of Britain's biggest wildlife and "Stately Homes" businesses, and what does the article say - just his blood line and a vulgar mention of the rich list.  Not impressive is it?  Can you see where I am coming from?  I don't greatly care if these people have articles or not, but quite a lot of people here would like to see them gone - so it's wake up time. Giano | talk 21:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits to Tony Blair
Hi. Could you tell me why you reverted my edits? Thanks. Jombo 01:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosford house
Good morning. I wonder if you could assist.

I was working through the list of articles needing wikification and came across Gosford house. I have edited it. However, at least two other articles link to Gosford House which ought to be the name of the article. Currently the link to Gosford House leads nowhere.

How do I change the name of the article to Gosford House? Avalon 22:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Avalon 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Baron O'Neill of the Maine, of Ahoghill in the County of Antrim."
Dude, I appreciate you reverting my edit at Terence O'Neill presumably on the basis that this is his full formal title; I mistakenly thought the article displayed just a simple geographical nomenclature mistake. "The County of Antrim" - it sounds so odd it makes me chuckle! Oh well, thanks for the correction! Brian 20:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

George Washington University
Hello, I'm trying (again) to get The George Washington University moved to George Washington University. Since you weighed in on this when it came up last year, I thought you might like to weigh in again. john k 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimed peerages and courtesy titles
It's slightly irrelevant to Wikipedia, but I'm sure you'll know the answer. When a hereditary peer disclaims his peerage, he "loses all titles, rights and privileges associated with the peerage; if he is a married man, so does his wife." But what about his children? Are they still styled The Honourable? This occurred to me when I read about the Earl of Durham. He improperly calls himself "Viscount Lambton", so his son has to use the title Lord Durham instead. But if his father lost all his titles, how can the son use one of them as a courtesy title? Thanks, JRawle 23:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Also connected to courtesy titles, I noticed yesterday the article of an heir apparent which had succession boxes for his courtesy title (it was Viscount something) with his father as the previous holder. Surely we don't normally do this, as the heir doesn't actually hold the title in his own right. Unfortunately I can't remember what the title was now...  J Rawle  (Talk) 10:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If I find it again, or any others, I'll be sure to remove it! Thanks,  J Rawle  (Talk) 11:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Found it, and someone's already beaten me to it!  J Rawle  (Talk) 12:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)