User talk:Tryde/Archive 4

Laurence Parsons, 1st Earl of Rosse
Hi Tryde, I have added the specific succession boxes and as you can see I have also transfered the already existing into the new and more flexible code (note for example the "with-parameter"). Another remark: In succession boxes regarding the Parliament of Ireland I generally use the ordinal with baronets (of course only if they have inherited at that time). Since baronets of one creation often share their christian name, this could/should help to avoid confusions and also make things a little bit more reasonable. If you have more questions, please give me a shout :-)  Phoe  talk  14:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Privy Counsellors (1952–present)
Thanks for all the hard work at List of Privy Counsellors (1952–present). I was just wondering why you are listing some peers by their titles and some by their actual names. Is it based on what name they used when they were admitted to the Privy Council? -Rrius (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Tryde (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodness, that must be a lot of work. Good job! -Rrius (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Page moves
Could you hold off on the page moves and redirects please?--Tznkai (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Baronets
When a baronet is later created a peer, it is sensible to categorise him as a baronet as well as a peer, since he was actually awarded both titles and held both titles concurrently. This is not the same situation as, for instance, an OBE being upgraded to a KBE, when the latter actually supersedes the former. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Nicolson
Hello. I recently marked this disambiguation pg for cleanup. I hate to delete entries when I think they are notable, but without any links they should be removed. I just thought I'd let you know, in case you know about these people and would consider making them into stubs. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Charles Grenfell
Any reason why you created two pages about the same person? -- T'Shael  MindMeld  08:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Charles Grenfell (1790–1867) - father. Charles Grenfell (1823–1861) - son. Tryde (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Thanks for the clarification. :) -- T'Shael  MindMeld  09:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Barons Sandys
They seem to have been styled Lord Arthur Hill, Lord Marcus Hill and Lord Augustus Hill. We also seem to have Lord Trevor's name wrong - he was styled Lord Edwin Hill before being ennobled. And yes, it was the 3rd Baron (as Lord Marcus Hill, MP for Evesham) who was Comptroller and then Treasurer. Proteus (Talk) 11:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that he may have done. The 3rd Marquess, of course, was never styled by his first name (being a courtesy peer from birth), so it may be that in the family the eldest was known by his courtesy peerage and the second by his first name. Proteus (Talk) 14:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
A heartfelt thanks for all the new articles on peers. You churn them out so fast that I've got "new pages by User:Tryde" bookmarked so I can patrol them all :). I've written articles on a few peers myself, but the rate at which you fill this gap in Wikipedia's coverage is bloody amazing. Keep up the good work :). Ironholds (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They're not featured article material but may be of use to someone interested in obscure 19th century MP's... Tryde (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd be me, then. And trust me, they might not be featured articles but the 200 articles on obscure 19th century MPs I've written can lead to some featured content anyway. Every bit helps, and there's no reason to suggest your work can't go towards featured content at some point Ironholds (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Trench, 4th Earl of Clancarty
Hi Tryde, I do not understand your redirection of Richard Trench? Not that you don't have a good reason; just curious. Daytrivia (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you redirected the page Richard Trench, 4th Earl of Clancarty it is almost the same as being deleted. The time and trouble it took me to create the page and then have it disappear without any heads-up or explaination certainly took me by surprise. Could you tell me how I go about getting the page back and perhaps how to prevent it from being deleted again in this manner. Thanks much. Daytrivia (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see that this article meets the notability criteria. I thought it better to redirect it than to propose it for deletion. Any reader interested in the biographical details of this peer should be referred to thepeerage.com or some other reference work on British nobility. Tryde (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Viscount St Davids
Hello, Tryde. You seem to have completely undone the work I did on Viscount St Davids the other day, but not given any explanation. Was this an oversight? (I see you've edited a lot of peerage articles over the weekend) If you intended it, please would you explain why it is better than what I created. Thanks --ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Colin, may I comment to this, that we should avoid scrappy notes and instead produce a coherent text, and that the lineup of the incumbents should be only a list undiffused with other information. You might wish to take a look at Guide_to_writing_better_articles for this and perhaps also at WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Best wishes  Phoe  talk  20:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but. First, those paragraphs are inappropriate for the lead section. They should be in the body of the article in some form, with a much shorter lead paragraph, and that was one of the things I was trying to do. Secondly, I think that those paragraphs are a list in disguised form. I find the text as it now stands unhelpful and confusing. (Tryde has also undone the factual updatings I made: the third viscount died a few months ago and the incumbent is the fourth). --ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Phoe. This is the style we have used in peerage articles for many years. I think your revisions made the article look cluttered and hard to follow. Tryde (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I can't argue with precedent, can I! :-) I find that style hard to make sense of, especially when skimming, because 'he' changes referent every sentence. Except where it doesn't (eg the second sentence of the second paragraph, about Baron Milford). Are you honestly claiming that this is clear and easy to read?
 * I also note that, on a quick browse through other viscountcies and dukedoms I haven't found another with that much information the lead section. I think the lead section should be about one third of its current length, mentioning the baronetcy only in passing. I agree that the details of the baronetcy belong in this article, but should be in separate section, as they are part of the historical context of the Viscountcy, not germane to the Viscountcy itself.
 * Thanks for restoring the updating - but again I think you've left too much information in the lead section. When Colwyn was the incumbent it made sense for the lead section to talk about his political career, but now that he is not, I don't think it should; indeed I'm not sure it even belongs in this article any more, apart from the loss of the seat in the Lords, which affects the title not just that particular Viscount. --ColinFine (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam:
Why are you reverting scores of painstakingly created articles without notification or apparent authorization? I am going to bring this matter to WP:ANI if I do not receive an answer. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Sir of Madam, there are numerous articles on peers that contain only brief biographical data. They were born, they married, they had children, they died... I can't see how they are notable, that's why I have redirected the articles to the respective peerage article. A reader interested purely in biographical details should be referred to www.thepeerage.com or other reference works on the British nobility. Tryde (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If they had seats in the Lords, they are notable, period Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How very kind! I just think we should concentrate our efforts on people who actually achieved something in life, apart from being born, inheriting a title, getting married, having children and dying. Tryde (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats not the point. They belong to the legislature and therefore be relevant.Max Mux (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Thank you
No problem. The reverting was also not a problem; WP:BOLD comes into effect. If the user in question had followed the usual avenues the problem wouldn't have arisen - as it is, I place all blame for the blowup on his shoulders for failing to discuss things with you, failing to inform you that you were being discussed at ANI and posting a hasty and badly thought-out rant at ANI while acknowledging that his anger was affecting his judgement. Your actions were not sufficient to result in an ANI thread, and if the current discussion at WP:BIO goes our way, that sort of blowup shouldn't be a problem for much longer :). Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and your definition of hereditary peers in the section above this one is perfect :). Ironholds (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
I've started a little infernal voting thing to get a clearer view of how people stand and if we've got consensus either way. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

thepeerage
I know, and it is unfortunate. However, the policy on RSs and verifiability is quite clear at WP:SPS, particularly "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Ironholds (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You could try opening a discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard? It would certainly be useful if we could get thepeerage and Leigh through, since they're excellent and based on decent sources, and the hansard citing should be useful to push it - give me a shout if you open such a thread and I'll chip in. I have heard, however, that Rayment deliberately puts in error into his work to identify plagiarism, which could be a problem if it is true. Rayment is indeed brilliant (perhaps we should get biblio to make him an Honourary Wikipedian of the Day? :P)
 * I try to keep calm, although I fear a frustrated tone does come through even if the words themselves aren't offensive or angry. I'll redirect one of those two to the other. Ironholds (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Baron Carrington and Baron Herschell
That would be stupid. Both peers are definitely notable and their bigraphies shouldn't be in a list.Max Mux (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning
First warning: if you again change back an edit without explanation you'll be reported to Wikipedia:VandalismMax Mux (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Second warning!Max Mux (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trembling with fear! May I ask what the second warning was for, since I had not made an edit between the first and second warning? Tryde (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you do!Max Mux (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is hilarious! Tryde (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No. You violate Wikipwedia guidelines. Please stop.Max Mux (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, you mean. Pull up the particular guidelines, please, and learn exactly where Vandalism goes. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hi, I have you and User:Max Mux reported at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring  Phoe  talk  16:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked you for 12h for misc edit warring. Quite which of you and M are most in the wrong I haven't bothered to find out, but please stop William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? As an administrator it's your responsibility to find out. You should have asked me for my view before imposing a block. I have been a serious editor to British peerage and politics articles for over three years. Like many others the last few days I have been trying to clean up the mess created by User:MaxMux. My last edit to the Baron Sherborne article was a clear case of reverting vandalism. Tryde (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? You have ruined it all. Max Mux (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, what have I ruined? Tryde (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The articles. Without explanation. You should have been blocked alone but now to make me responsible? Maybe we should speak with a mediator if you are not willing to talk normarly to me.Max Mux (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is amusing. Which articles? Tryde (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not. Don't try to make fun of my costs.Max Mux (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What articles are you referring to? Tryde (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that a real question?Max Mux (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting tiresome. Can we move on now, please? Tryde (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the language!Max Mux (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Max, you were edit-warring as well. Regardless of "who is right", both of you were screwing around, so don't go shouting at Tryde about it being his fault and him shifting blame onto you. Ironholds (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)