User talk:David Lauder/Archive 3

Re: Towns

I'm presently contemplating a return to live in deepest darkest Berwickshire, just a hop over the Lammermuirs but without as much the WP coverage as EL. I thought I should revisit some of my old stomping grounds! Brendandh 11:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of thunder storms between Lammeruirs and Cheviots. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Berwickshire is still lovely but raging debates about scattered housing are a worry. East Lothian has long had this problem with the Edinburgh overspill. Yet the population of Scotland has been falling steadily for decades and the government predictions are for that to drastically continue. So who needs all these houses? David Lauder 16:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• All the folks who continue to flee the countryside for the cities: an ancient and seeming unending process. --Orange Mike 13:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Errr..but we are speaking of the opposite here, plus, what of the population decrease? David Lauder 14:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Pedantry: Parliaments and Sir William Miller

Hi David, please excuse a quick point of parlaimentary pedantry.

I just spotted a wee glitch in Sir William Miller, 1st Baronet, which I have corrected, and thought I'd point out to your for future reference. You had categorised him under Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain, which was inaccurate, because he was actually a member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which was created when the Parliament of Great Britain was abolished by the Acts of Union 1800. So I recategorised him under Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Scottish constituencies.

Since you do a lot of good work on titled folk, I thought that this might be helpful to you, because many of these titled people many of them sat in the British House of Commons.

BTW, I have also created Miller Baronets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Millers were very interesting. They made a fortune in Russia. So very many thanks. All assistance is gratefully received. David Lauder 16:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

Yes, a bit perplexing to find that this discussion had been carried out, without reference to WP Scotland or Scot. Castles. At least there should have been some form of prior notification.

I have put the following on the proposer's talkpage and on the Cat talk:

Further to the discussion that took place on June 19th, re. Historic Houses in Scotland &c: I would have thought that it would have been courteous to have made known that it was taking place, to those who have spent most time working on these articles, eg at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scottish Castles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales. I live in a house, in Scotland, it is 350 years old, therefore it has some "History". It is not, however, "Historic" as that implies that either it was of unique construction, or that specific important events took place there. I would not presume to give my building an article, yet nevertheless it is a still a "House in Scotland". I would therefore ask those who have changed this classification to explain themselves on the relevant noticeboards.

See if that does anything or nothing at all! Regards. Brendandh 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. David Lauder 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, I see you've started something that was always at the back of my mind to do, the Haliburtons. If any pics reqd. I'm just up the road. Brendandh 01:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a little book in my library which contains Sir Walter Scott's notes on them. David Lauder 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Category:Houses in Scotland, I don't really have a problem with the new name - in fact it allows notable modern country houses (not that there are articles on many of these, yet) to be included with their 'Historic' counterparts. Houses, old or new, are notable for a variety of reasons, perhaps architecture, perhaps the historical events that happened there, sometimes both. Basil Spence's Gribloch House (1937) would be an example of a notable 'non-historic' house. As Brendan points out, his house is neither historic nor notable and wouldn't get an article, so I don't see any potential for conflict there. Thanks for pointing out the change though, as I'd missed it too. Edward Waverley 09:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Edward. Well I can't agree. The term Historic House in Britain has an almost universally accepted meaning which everyone understands. Basil Spence's house, being 1937, might scrape in, being 70 years old, but I think you are confusing architecture, period, and styles here. There may indeed be modern houses of note and maybe they should fall into a category of their own but I believe that Historic House has a recognised connotation. David Lauder 09:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I take your point about the common use of "Historic House", but what about "Country House", "Country Seat", "Stately Home", all words with recognised, but vague, connotations? I still think the new name is acceptable. I hope we can agree to disagree. Thanks, Edward Waverley 10:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the latter three would generally be accepted to fall within the Historic House title by most people. I just think Houses in Scotland has no meaning at all. Regards, David Lauder 12:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I wanna give you a prize

Hi, I'm Javitomad, a Spanish user of English wikipedia.

I've seen you've created some articles about Spain.

Because of that, I want to give you a Barnstar, the Spanish Barnstar.

• 
  I, Javitomad, give you this Barnstar for contributing for a better Spanish-English Wikipedia.
  June 26^th, 2007.

(copy and paste this in your user page.)

Javitomad (...tell me...) 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, little contributions are the most important contributions. I really think you deserve this.
Javitomad (...tell me...) 16:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations! --Counter-revolutionary 18:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Congratulations from me too. As a Spanish speaker (second language) I always like to see improvements in the Spanish/English interface, SqueakBox 18:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Burnt Candlemas

Yes you're right about the link. I have made a start on St Mary's Collegiate Church in Haddington, a structure created as a result of this extended raid. I think I might when I get the time start an article on this well documented time. Destruction that was unparallelled in its sacreligious intent until the Rough Wooing and Reformation. Brendandh 12:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I probably can help, although a bit frantic at the moment. Regards, David Lauder 12:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi, in answer to your question, perhaps it would be best to start a discussion on the Talk:Flag of Ireland page and suggest the page be moved to "Flag of the Republic of Ireland", for example, and see where the discussion goes on that. Usually its best to get consensus on the page before attempting a move. I might leave "Flag of Ireland" as a redirect, however. SirFozzie 19:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have done that. I am not passionate about this nor partisan. I came across it by chance. It is a incorrect article page title and the only people who would argue for its retention will be chronic nationalists who will be arguing their political corner rather than relying upon the simple fact that legally this flag is not the flag of the whole island of Ireland and so should not be titled as such. David Lauder 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lauderdale or Lauder

Hi. Did the community council change its name? It was still called Lauderdale last month. [1] We should probably chnge it to Lauder (formerly Lauderdale) if that is the case. I believe you're clser to the source! Lozleader 13:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a communication two months ago from a lady who described herself as the secretary of Lauder Community Council. I would be surprised if it covered all of Lauderdale because that would take in towns and villages from Oxton to below Earlston. I shall check. regards, David Lauder 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a map on the Scottish Borders website [2]. It doesn't include Oxton or Earlston, but does take in a bit of Selkirkshire if I'm not mistaken... AFAIK the area council gives the community councils their names, but when they are established they can change them to pretty much anything they want so it's entirely posssible that they have changed their name and the Borders Council website hasn't caught up with that yet. Lozleader 11:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Summer break

Just had a summer break. Back now. David Lauder 11:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Burkes

Burke, Messrs., John and John Bernard, The Royal Families of England Scotland and Wales, with Their Descendants etc., London, volume 1, 1848, pedigree CLXXXV; volume 2, 1851, pedigree CCVIII. Gosh you do have a good library. May I come and have a look? :)Brendandh 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you like, but we are working on the rear wing of the house at the moment and all is in turmoil. Email me sometime. I have just finished re-reading Bain's brilliant The Edwards in Scotland 1296 - 1377. Terrifically well sourced. David Lauder 08:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of Kiev

David,Thank you for your contributions to the Kyiv/Kiev debate. I really enjoy discussing things with people who have different opinions but an open mind. Horlo 19:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the sarcasm. Its not a question of an open mind or otherwise. It is a question of dealing with reality. It seems to me that Wikipedia is awash with editors pushing their own agendas. David Lauder 20:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

David, Believe it or not, I actually thought that you had something positive to contribute. Horlo 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt I just made a factual contribution. There are countless towns and cities across the world where the English-language spellings differ, sometimes very much, from the original or local spellings. It's just the way we are. David Lauder 18:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Flags

In your edit on List of British flags you added (dropped by the Labour UK government in 2000 as part of the 'Peace Process') have you got a source for that claim, as the Ulster Banner was dropped in 1973 under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 it wasn't a feature of the peace process.--padraig 19:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my understanding. I cannot see any mention of the Northern Ireland flag being dropped before that by the government and I think most people would be surprised. I also feel that the inclusion of the Republic of Ireland's flag as one of those which pertains to Northern Ireland as entirely wrong. If you are saying that some of the populance are treasonable and are using this flag I hardly think that merits inclusion, any more than someone in Yorkshire flying the Swastika flag and the Great British Flags page including it. I will try and obtain a copy from Hansard of the Act you cite. David Lauder 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

David the GFA recognises that both communities have different political aspirations, with nationalist seeking an United Ireland in the long term and the Unionists wanting to remain as British subjects, as part of this the GFA allows for the population of Northern Ireland to have either British, Irish or Both as citizenship. The Ulster Banner was the Governmental banner of the Former Government or Privy council of Northern Ireland, it was never a civic flag and was used only by that government, when it was suspended in 1972, and abolished in 1973 all it trappings of government ceased to exist officially including the banner and Coat of Arms it was derived from. The Coat of Arms is in a limbo position currently because the warrant is was granted with is still in existance, and in theory a future Government of Northern Ireland could apply to have the warrant transfered to them.--padraig 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link you might find interesting, Report it is a debate amongst all the political parties on the flag issue, during the preparation of The Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, none of the parties involved even mention the Ulster Banner, they are concerned mainly with the Union flag and its use and also the Irish Tricolour is mentioned.--padraig 19:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your sentence above (commencing with 'David') as irrelevant. Most British Citizens who have gone to live in Australia, for instance, have retained that citizenship after the acquired Australian citizenship. As we are now in the EU I suspect one could technically argue that the differences you cite are also irrelevant. But flags are another matter and they do not normally relate to differences at the local polls. Flags are not normally awarded to governments, rather the other way around. I suspect that when Northen Ireland became a province and the Republic gained its independence NI got a flag. I'd have to check that, though. Apart from the several service flags I don't really know of what you call "civil" flags unless you are referring to a council flag. Governments come and go and as a result sometimes the national flag is changed (Nazi Germany, Soviet Union) or changed (Italy) slightly but have any of them been actually abolished or have they simply fallen into disuse, a bit like National Anthems. All the sections of the United Kingdom have a flag and I think it rather mean and possibly partisan for you to deny Northern Ireland theirs as though they were a poor relation. David Lauder 14:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As a contributor to the great flag debate..

you may be interested in adding your votes Talk:Northern_Ireland#Straw_poll here. As this one is being conducted by an admin and in a simpler format than my attempt, it should hopefully draw a line under the issue. Biofoundationsoflanguage 09:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am only interested in correctness. I felt the arguments slightly ludicrous. I shall vote according to my understanding of the situation. David Lauder 12:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

To link to a diff

Click on "history" at the top of the relevant page. You will get the list of every edit made.[3]

Find the particular edit you want to reference, e.g.:

(cur) (last) 12:45, 7 August 2007 David Lauder (Talk | contribs | block) (19,210 bytes) (→As a contributor to the great flag debate.. - reply) (undo)

Click on the bluelink "(last)" on the left of the line. You will get the edit up on your screen.[4]

Go to the URL at the top of the page. In this case it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Lauder&diff=149759750&oldid=149759578

Click the URL at the top of the page, so it all goes blue.

Right click on the blue-highlighted URL and select the copy option in the drop down menu that appears.

Then paste that URL where you want to make a diff link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Lauder&diff=149759750&oldid=149759578

Put a square bracket either end:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Lauder&diff=149759750&oldid=149759578]

It will then appear as a blue link number, like this:

[5]

Tyrenius 22:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Making a complaint.

Just to let you know that I am in complete agreement with you in regards to Padraigs 'methods'. If you are still making a complaint please do use my name as a second reference. I'm fairly new to this complaining crack so wouldn't have a clue where to start... Conypiece 00:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have experienced being hounded on my talk page. I have been accused of sockpuppetry and canvassing among other things. Had someone not noticed it and intervened it would still be going on now. No-one who is trying his best to contribute to this encyclopaedia should have to endure someone who acts as judge, juror and executioner. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sir James Kilfedder

Hullo David! Could you have a look at the talk page of this article, you may be able to give some sensible input, I'm worried some of the comments which editors are trying to insert are gratuitously homosexual and not encyclopedic. --Counter-revolutionary 12:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel bound to say I know nothing about this gentleman. I am sorry that someone feels it so utterly necessary to insert what I understand is only speculation about the fellow's private life and nobody's business but his own. But looking through Wikipedia it often reads like the media, with all its speculations and inuendos rather than an encyclopaedia. Many of those contributing to Wikipedia seem determined to make certain any amount of scandal they can locate is flagged up for the world to see and speculate upon, and, of course, to cause maximum distress to family and friends. You have to ask yourself this: would the Britannica have an entry like that? Almost certainly not and that, in itself, confirms my complaint. When Wikipedia started off it had the opportunity to be a great on-line encyclopaedia. It has, instead, become a battleground between people pushing their opinions and personal or national agendas. You'll see more personal opinions on Wikipedia than you'll hear in a lifetime. I retreat daily into the comfort of my library. David Lauder 12:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, sad isn't it. Would you copy some of that into the talk page so this chap doesn't think I'm the only one who thinks it shouldn't be there. No knowledge of Kilfedder is necessary really. --Counter-revolutionary 12:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

William de Lauder, Bishop of Glasgow

Noticed that the article gives his father as Sir Robert de Lawedre of Edrington. The book that I took the image of the seal from says that his father was Sir Allan Lauder of Haltoun and says that the arms on the great steeple are those of Lauder of Hatton. He then goes on to counter himself by saying that his parents were "Robert and Anabella de Lawedre ; and from the Arms often repeated on the Cathedral and found on his Seal, he must have been of the ancient Family of the Lauders of the Merse. His Arms are three Bars within an Escutcheon, with Mitre, Crozier, and the Badges of his Episcopal dignity. Crawford and Keith are mistaken about the parentage of the Bishop." Can you shed any light on this? Rgds, --Bill Reid | Talk 14:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bill, and thanks for your message. These books can be misleading. For a start the arms described are not his. Mackenzie and Laing give his arms as shewn on his seals as the same as The Bass family but without the double tressure. Also, The Grange of St.Giles has a pen and ink drawing of his Arms over a mantel in Glasgow Cathedral and it contains just the Griffin. I can't quite make out the crest which of course will be personal to him. (I could look it up). We know definitely who his parents are because there is a charter of his father to Glasgow Cathedral in the National Archives of Scotland at HM Register House, Edinburgh, confirmed by the Duke of Albany, which gives Robert's spouse and the family at that point, and William, the Bishop, is cited as his eldest son. Prior to discovering this charter, which was mentioned in C.A.B.Lawder's 1914 book, I had taken what several other authors (who obviously copied from one another) said that he was the son of Alan Lauder of Haltoun. In addition, William the Bishop went on embassies a couple of times with an Alan de Lawedre, described as his brother, and after the Alan of Haltoun had died. I'm afraid when you get back to this period some things become muddled, especially relationships, as each generation, and the cadet families, all had the same Christian names. Hope that helps. Regards, David Lauder 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that. Rgds, --Bill Reid | Talk 08:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the new information. I have a feeling my local library subscribes to this publication so I'll have a look. Rgds --Bill Reid | Talk 12:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Knights

Could you please answer my question? Do you think that all knights should also have "Sir" in their article titles? If you don't think so, could you please explain why the case for knights to have that isn't exactly the same as the case you lay out for baronets? I've asked this question several times, and you have never even attempted to respond. john k 19:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think so, unless they are known more commonly by something else - such as is the routine with peers also. --Counter-revolutionary 19:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello John. I apologise if I have not responded. Yes, I do think that if the Crown has awarded a knighthood to an individual that their page headings in Wikipedia should be under their legal form of address, which would be Sir John Kenny. I am totally unable to see why this is such a big issue on Wikipedia. Every encyclopaedia and every directory I have ever read gives baronets and knights their proper titles in their headings. Why would they say Sam Brown when it is Sir Sam Brown or Sir Sam Brown, 3rd Bt.? This is correct form and I just cannot see what the issue is here unless we have republicans and people of their ilk attempting to introduce some sort of socialist revolutionary norms into Wikipedia. People are either listed correctly, or they are not. Its that simple. David Lauder 10:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source questions

I saw you left a note at WP:ANI about Lauder. There's actually a page for getting input on "reliable source" questions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I left a note there asking for input. We'll see what happens (nothing much I expect). Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Angus. (I was at school with a Bruce McLellan). I cannot believe how citing references can have been blown out of all proportion like this. I am desperately busy today so will follow it up tomorrow. David Lauder 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I have filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am at wits end with Wikipedia. Do they require intelligent contributions? It would seem not. As the Main page says: "anyone can edit" (and "anyone" does) and this has opened the floodgates to just about every 'anti' brigade going (not to mention those promoting and sanitising terrorism), rather than creating an encyclopaedia. If "anyone" was properly policed and the trouble-makers and those with some sort of POV mission clearly identified and acted against, then all would be well. But they are not policed and it has become clear to me at least that the administrators either concur with the troublemakers (because they share similar views) or at best are appeasers in as much as they fall over themselves trying to be "evenhanded". Glad they're not judges in our courts. I will not be contributing to the ArbCom case because experience has demonstrated that I and any work I have contributed to WP will be attacked using all the usual excuses by the cabal supporting the person in question. WP Administrators appear not to wish to address this at all so they cannot be surprised if people abstain. David Lauder 13:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

David, as I and other admins have said before, there are POV missions on both sides of this dispute. Many of the people who you accuse of "promoting and sanitising terrorism" clearly regard themselves as trying to give a fair account of the activities of a guerilla campaign which arose out of a political conflict, and which had a significant degree of popular support; they would also point to the British establishment, and to a history which includes Burntollet, the driving of Catholics in Belfast out of their homes in 1969, to internment without trial, to large numbers of civilians injured by plastic bullets, and say that in that context it is unjust to accuse one side of using violence in a less legitimate sense. We all know that there is a very well-reasoned and widely-supported case to be made for the role of the British and Northern Irish governments, but you appear to be under the impression that wikipedia should somehow condemn one side, and that's the big problem here. Wikipedia is not the place to attach disparaging labels to things we don't like; our job as editors is to record the facts insofar as they agreed, and to note the areas of disagreement, both over fact and over interpretation. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, so rather than using terminology which suits either side of the debate, let's use neutral, descriptive terms (such sniper rather than assassin, killed rather than murdered or assassinated), and let the readers make up their own minds. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm, shocked to read that. Tyrenius also seems to include me in some Anglo-Irish opposition lobby, but you're both wrong to be chucking all this at me. My only comments of any substance on the subject were made very many months ago where I effectively said there is nothing whatsoever neutral about your father, mother or your children being blown into little pieces by terrorists whatever their cause. How anyone can see that as one-sided I just do not know. Your mentions of The Troubles I fear are also somewhat distorted and not the full story at all. At least it helps me to understand things much better. David Lauder 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

David, of course those comments on the troubles are not the full story! If the full story could be written, it would take volumes ... and it's unlikely that anyone at all would agree with it anyway. All I was trying to do was to point out that one of the many coherent lenses through which these things can be viewed is very different to a pro-British lens, not to suggest that's my vie of things.

I think you get near the core of the matter when you wisely point out that "there is nothing whatsoever neutral about your father, mother or your children being blown into little pieces". I know people who have lost relatives to loyalist paras, to republicans paras, and to British forces, and few of them feel particularly neutral about about any of it, but it's our job to record these things neutrally. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Giano II's attack page

You should probably be aware that Giano II is using 303's and Brixton Buster's (effective) technique of removing inconvenient material from user space:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiano%2Fsome_thoughts&diff=153430452&oldid=153428848

One would have thought that he could have stuck to policy and guidelines at least while an ArbCom was pending84.13.10.123 22:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer not to get involved. Regards, David Lauder 13:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning

This edit summary [6] is totally out of order. It was a perfectly reasonable and normal editorial action taken by BrownHairedGirl. If you carry on with this hostility, you'll be blocked without any further warning. Kindly stop making accusations and innuendos against other editors. Just deal with the issue at hand. If you feel unable to do so, because of personal involvement in particular articles, then leave them alone and edit something else. Tyrenius 13:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please answer this questing directly without any comment: are you stalking my edits? David Lauder 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No David, I am giving you a warning to remain CIVIL and refrain from personal attacks — and not for the first time either. Tyrenius 14:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I find your sudden appearance minutes after my comment uncanny. Moreover, I believe I am being civil in the context of normal adult discussion. It seems to me that any degree of provocation and seriously uncivil behaviour with some editors on WP goes unnoticed but the minute I speak out on matters I feel should be, I am assailed as being in bad faith and uncivil. I would challenge you and any other editors to show me where I have been a nuisance, deletioner, or raving flagger of AfDs on things which I personally disagreed with. I am a genuine contributor. David Lauder 14:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing uncanny. That article and many others in the "Anglo-Irish" arena (as well as most user pages relating to it) have accrued on my watchlist. I've previously edited its talk page, as it happens. If you leave an edit summary "another attack", it jumps out. It's not civil to accuse someone of an "attack", when they are just following normal wiki procedures. Where have you been a nuisance? Well, this thread at User_talk:Tyrenius/Archive7#Harrassment will do for a start, accusing someone of vandalism simply for following WP:MOS, and just minutes ago criticising a "small army of editors/administrators who are opposed to the aristocracy, baronets, the British establishment, and indeed in some cases anything British".[7] I presume this is the same army of administrators who are simultaneously being accused of crimes against Vintagekits. The common factor is that whenever an admin in this arena takes any action that displeases someone, they are immediately accused of being anti-that "side", so I'm afraid I have no respect for such accusations, and you, along with all other editors who do the same, would be in much better standing if you refrained from such behaviour. Who exactly do you have in mind when you say, "any degree of provocation and seriously uncivil behaviour with some editors on WP goes unnoticed"? Various editors involved with Anglo-Irish affairs have received censure without prejudice one way or the other. The fact that both "sides" have complained in exactly the same way is a fair indication of that. You are welcome to address issues, but not to brand something as an "attack" simply because you don't agree with it. That's not going to solve anything. It is a shame that your good contributions are marred in this way. Tyrenius 16:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I do not think you should include me in any "Anglo-Irish" arena. Whilst it is true that very many months ago I made several comments on the pro-IRA articles, I left it at that and moved on. Irish affairs interest me not. I feel your comments above are sweeping generalisations (just as you probably think mine are). As for my remarks about the British etc., I believe that the many comments made my numerous editors bear this our, as do the ludicrous 'consenses' (amounting to 'I don't like')on matters that are set in stone by Correct Form and therefore require no consensus whatsoever by anyone. It demonstrates that parts of Wikipedia are being based upon personal and political opinions. But you are correct in that I see some people in the right and some people clearly in the wrong and it is a shame that administrators cannot see that either. Editors' contributions have been religiously attacked by those who have no obvious interest whatsoever in the subjects but have gone to those pages to be disruptive as a form of threat to the editors they have decided to act against and who had made major contributions to them. I cannot understand why this sort of activity is not pounced upon by administrators. I know the various arguments used for the attacks of the pages concerned might comply with some WP Guideline or other but that is not the point. It is this sort of bullying activity which is carried on unchallenged that I feel will do fatal damage to WP. Again, I cannot put names up here because of it. David Lauder 18:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify that my use of "Anglo-Irish" is meant to encompass the whole spectrum of editors and articles relating to IRA, Baronets, flags, place names and whatever else. The "correct form", e.g. re. baronet article titles, has already achieved consensus, but consensus can change. In fact I have argued that it should at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Consistency, basically I think in line with what you would want. As there seems to be an implication from you that I am somehow part of the "small army of editors/administrators who are opposed to the aristocracy, baronets, the British establishment, and indeed in some cases anything British", I would be grateful if you could explain how the edit I have just linked demonstrates your thesis. Take as long as you want. I have noticed that you make generalised statements, but do not back them up with evidence. If you don't supply diffs, then no one is going to take your complaints seriously. I bothered to type out detailed instructions on how to do them. Have you studied those? I didn't even get an acknowledgement, let alone a thank you. I think by any standards of etiquette, that is rather rude. How does leaving those instructions show my opposition to you?

You are quite entitled to "see some people in the right and some people clearly in the wrong", but you are not entitled to edit on that basis. This is a private web site and you have been given editing privileges on the basis that you follow core policies, namely WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR, with their derivative guidelines, such as WP:NOTABILITY. People become admins because they understand this and accept the enforcement of it, regardless of their personal preferences. Those are the "rules". When you contravene them and they are applied, it will not help your case at all to make accusations. Surely you understand that all institutions have procedures to follow?

Study WP:OWN. Editors are expected to address issues they find in articles or with other editors' work, as long as that is done in order to improve the encyclopedia according to the policies. You lash out and brand participation you don't like as "attacks" and "bullying". That is how you labelled a post from BrownHairedGirl which is nothing of the kind. She is of course simultaneously branded as an oppressor by the other "side" as well. Can't you see how ridiculous that situation is? Quite clearly censure is applied to all editors who violate policies. I suggest you study Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Proposed decision very carefully. The bottom line is that you won't get your own way all the time, and you have to adapt to the environment here, if you want to survive in it. It is a transformation that many of us have gone through. Tyrenius 01:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I apologise for not thanking you previously for the instructions you left. I am often very pressed for time and may have intended to but simply forgot. No slur was intended. I am not very IT literate and I had some difficulty working it out. I shall have another try at some point. But, you know, I really don't want to get into all these arguments and accusations. I really don't. I feel I came to Wikipedia to be constructive.

I note all you say but it is as clear as day to me that someone whose seemingly only object in life are the IRA articles, who then comes across someone like me who on one, maybe two occasions simply disagrees with them on one or two issues, then deliberatly locates articles I have either written or made major contributions to and then starts attacking them under a whole range of guises is simply bullying. Whilst a few of the Arbuthnot articles may have been a bit wanting there can be no doubt that this same gang were supporting Vintagekits little war with Kittybrewster in attacking these also, articles in which their only interest was destructive. User:Choess concedes (on User talk:Major Bonkers)...."I'm broadly sympathetic to your view, and VK has clearly been conducting a campaign of harassment under the color of policy......".

Now I realise that you and I may disagree, and that you too might again raise a whole lot of WP guidelines for me to examine, but private website or not it encourages ordinary people to contribute on a world-wide basis, and you have to sit back for a minute and ask yourself how, in general terms, this sort of activity would be viewed by most people. No-one believes for a minute they own an article. But some articles (more than others) require a very considerable amount of research and input (I, for instance, am not a trained typist), and it is utterly deflating to see the activity I speak of. David Lauder 08:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Defining harassment

Please see ArbCom ruling. NOTE - this proposal was defeated:

" If an editor has made errors, it is often useful to check their contributions to see whether they have made similar errors in other articles, or with respect to other images. However, aggressively checking the logs of editors with whom you are in a dispute may constitute harassment."[8]

Tyrenius 01:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that was a very reasonable proposal and I see it was voted down by just one vote. Maybe it should have been left up longer for greater consideration. David Lauder 08:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of baronets

Hi David, I came across several comments by you on Kittybrewster's talk page, which were subsequently deleted. Since many of them appear to be directed at me, I have copied the elevant discussion to my talkpage (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Notability_of_baronets), where I have asked a few questions to which I would apreciate a reply. I would like to assume in good faith that these points not just a personal attack, and your replies could help clarify that. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I really wish editors could have a normal everyday discussion without being silenced under all this good faith/civility/personal attack business. I don't know you, you have never really caused me any grief, and my comments are just that, hopefully to be taken in an adult manner. I bear neither you nor anyone else ill-will. I have followed your request and answered on your Talk Page. Regards, David Lauder 20:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)