User:Phoe/Archive/November 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] S-gov

  • Hi. Thanks. I wondered why it wasn't working. I've changed the text colour to white - looks much better now. Although I'm happy for the colour to be changed if you still don't like it. -- Necrothesp 01:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User

  • His contributions are unverifiable nonsense IMHO. - Kittybrewster 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S-pol

  • Greetings. I would have no objection to a minor change to S-pol template colour and I see what you mean about the contrast. However, I am v busy at present on RAF stuff and you sound like you're better on these design considerations than I am. Please feel free to change as you see fit. Greenshed 19:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Normans

  • Sorry, I don't know much about the Normans. I'll have a look anyway, though. Proteus (Talk) 08:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Burkem

  • You made me laugh. Burkem mixing up Odo of Startrek with Odo of Bayeux. Nice one. - Kittybrewster 13:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Burkem/review list

  • I had hoped that rather than delete completed assesments, we'd fill in the haedings and move them to a "completed" sections at the end — that way we'd have a record of what he had done which would be useful to anyone revieing the block. Would you mind holding off for a few minutes until I pick on your really useful listing to do that? Thanks, and sorry for notw making my intentions clear at the outset. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note on Herluain de C have moved him to NFA. And that's all I going to do on the Burkem tidyup today, so i have removed the {{inuse}} tag from User:Burkem/review list. Keep up the good work, if you have the energy! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've finally gotten the last two on the review list done. The work should be wrapped up now. Choess 02:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Rodri philipps

  • I am not totally sure what you are asking. That I not oppose the reinstatement of Rodri Phillips? If so, I will not oppose a reinstatement, but you will need to ask an admin to do so, as I only nominated it, and do not have the clearance to do so. Best wishes!--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • From what I can remember from its brief history, it wasn't complete rubbish, just scant claims to notalbility.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have checked the deletion log for you - the only article as spelled above was the one word article that had test in it - there must have been an alternative spelling - perhaps with correct capitalisation. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 16:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

[edit] CFDs on MPs

[edit] Grüße von einem Emigranten

  • "Nach einem begeisterten Empfang gekennzeichnet durch typisch deutsche Ignoranz bzw. Arroganz, bin ich wieder in freundlicheren Gefilden zu finden." Ich habe ähnliche Erfahrungen gemacht. Meine deutsche Benutzerseite wurde nach kurzer Zeit im Frühjahr 2005 gesperrt. Ich emigrierte rechtzeitig mit meiner kompletten Benutzerseite. Viel Grüße ...--Manfred Riebe 18:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ich wurde durch den Ruf zum Abendessen unterbrochen, so daß ich die Grüße nun nachgeholt habe. Ich wurde hierdurch aufmerksam:

Ah, sie lernen Deutsch? Warum dieses? Viele Grüße ~~ Phoe talk 17:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ Eine Anmerkung: Ich glaube, ihr könnt Jimbo auch mit "du" anreden. In der deutschen Wikipedia ist das üblich :) —da Pete (ばか) 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Die deutschen Anstandsformen ... lassen eh zu wünschen übrig ~~ Phoe talk 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ :-)

  • "Die deutschen Anstandsformen ... lassen eh zu wünschen übrig." Mir fallen in der deutschen Wikipedia einige Benutzer auf, auf die das zutrifft, z.B. Nodutschke, Unscheinbar. Ich würde das aber nicht verallgemeinern. - Zu Jimbo Wales: Versteht er schon deutsch? Eine Antwort auf deutsch hat er ja noch nicht gegeben. - Übrigens, schauen Sie mal ins NZ-Forum, wo ich auch zugange bin, z.B.: "Die unendliche Geschichte der neuen Rechtschreibung" [2] und ins Forum der Stuttgarter Zeitung: Zur Rücknahme der "Rechtschreibreform" [3] --Manfred Riebe 18:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peerage categories for deletion

[edit] French project "Coat of arms"

  • Hello! You sent me a message while I was adding coat of arms... on the english and german wikipedia ! :-) (that of county of Charolais). On the german page, I didn't write any caption, because I don't know what is the german word for "coat of arms", do you know it ? See you soon. Orror.fr 14:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roundell Palmer, 3rd Earl of Selborne

  • Hi Phoe, have you any idea how to index the House of Commons categories for Roundell Palmer, 3rd Earl of Selborne?
  • The problem is that he was know in the Commons as Viscount Wolmer.
  • If I index under Wolmer, then anyone who knows to look for him as Wolmer will find no trace of a Viscount Wolmer amongst the Ws. But if I index under Palmer, then he will be esaily findable by anyone who knows his birth name, but invisible to anyone who only knows him as Wolmer.
  • I do wish these peers would stick to their birth names! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peers and names and things

  • So far as I can tell, James Hutchinson Hoy was normally referred to James Hoy, unlike Arthur Vere Harvey whose middle name was normally used. J.F. Moulton was normally referred to either by initials, or by his initial and middle name ("J. Fletcher Moulton"). So the cases aren't exact parallels. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 18:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basketdove

  • There is no need to warn the user when the user has already stopped and been warned by multiple users. JoshuaZ 21:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinks

  • To which edits were you referring? I hit about 10 articles tonight, and most of the ones I removed were names of British nobles from the 18th and 19th century, or almost non-notable awards that I thought would probably never get created. I don't know the policy or best practice, but I would say that articles with such huge numbers of redlinks makes the articles (or the entire encyclopedia) incomplete. Notable subjects are one thing, but I would argue it's probably impractical to think that most of the redlinks I remove would ever be created. Too much pragmatism? /Blaxthos 10:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I had a feeling it was the royals that did me in.  :-) I didn't mean to imply that they're not notable... I simply mean that it would seem (to me) that leaving an article full of massive redlinks seems more ideological than practical. With that in mind... how do I know what redlinks should stay and what should go? Also in self defense, MANY of the links in question were piped, which implied to me that they were articles that existed at one time and were subsequently deleted. Thanks for the help! /Blaxthos 10:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Bolton

  • Thanks but in the meantime User:Choess has come up with the much more sensible solution of moving the info to the article on the 1st Baron
  • Thanks Phoe. No problems. I am busy reading WikiProject Peerage. Kind regards Ordyg 19:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Torrington

  • Firstly, thanks for asking. My opinion would be that each hereditary peerage should have its own page, even if there were only one holder (unless of course its been consumed by a higher peerage etc). This allows for details like exact date of creation and the terroritial designation, which are not necessary on the main page. However, as many peerages had only one holder, perhaps some consensus should be reached about what to do for these pages generally? Could a discussion be had somewhere?--Berks105 18:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Scone

  • Actually, was planning to write a proper article on Scone, which as one of the most important locations in British history merits the simple Scone page, rather than the cumbersome and hard to find Scone, Perth and Kinross. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 10:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Clyde

  • Happy for you to move the pages as suggested. Prompted by your message, I've expanded the articles and made the father/son link clear.--George Burgess 23:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir

  • Wiki style guidance is that 'Sir' is never included where a higher title exists, this would apply just as much to a life peerage as hereditary peerages. Though it's not specifically in the style guide we also don't include Bt. after peers or use the odd combination of His Grace the Most Noble infront of the Dukes [only His Grace]. Of course some of the above is correct in the real world and some of it is just agreed wiki policy :) Alci12 15:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bridgemans

  • No clue about Edward, I'm afraid. It was all I could to to scrape up what I have in Sir John Bridgeman from online sources. I've put John Bridgeman (MP), Sir John's descendant at some remove, on my list of people to research some day; whenever I get around to that, I'll see if I can find something on Edward, too. I'm sure there must be a volume of 19th-century research on Devonshire gentry knocking about somewhere. Choess 20:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)