User talk:DAFMM/Archive 6

P. S. All posts are filled by their starting date (e. g. if a comment was posted in May and finished in July it is filed in May, but the conversation is only filed after it has finished).

DAFMM[edit]

From Dabbler's talk page.

You seem to have had better luck in reaching DAFMM to be reasonable than I did. He hasn't stopped generating those crap talkpages; I've had to delete three that he created after his conversation with you.

As I said to him, I don't want to impose disciplinary measures on him, but I will if I have to.

(Also... I have no idea where he got this idea that I don't speak English? Is there anything in my word choice that makes it seem like I'm not a native speaker?) DS (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Pages (DAFMM)[edit]

DragonflySixtyseven,

I did not say I would stop doing it.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 2 August 2009.

Edit counters[edit]

Hi.

Sorry to bother you, but for a while now edit counters are failing, i was wondering why is happening and if could be fixed?. Zidane tribal (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

I know about the edit counters and I don't know why they have failed. If you go onto the Luxo contributions it gives you all the edits for all the other Wikimania sites just not English Wikipedia. They have been down for about a week now I would say.

I will try and make a few enquiries.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 5th August 2009.

They appear to be working again but only until July, 31, any edit into august aren`t recorded, weird. Zidane tribal (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be fixed soon enough then. DAFMM (talk), 6th August 2009.

Post-nominal titles[edit]

Hello. I have no wish to enter into an edit war with you so could you please stop inserting a full stop between the letters of GCB and ODM in the Thomas Cochrane article. Post-nominal initials are not usually written like this on Wikipedia. See the many other biographies containing GCB, KCB, OBE, etc. Thanks. Barret (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Because that is what many hundreds of Wikipedia editors have decided over a number of years is the style to be used and we wish to maintain a consistent approach in all the articles so they look and read the same. If you cannot accept this consensus, then perhaps you should consider what you are doing here. Dabbler (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there room for change and improvement? DAFMM (talk), 6th August 2009.

Of course there is always an opportunity to make changes and improvements. However, the process is not by one person unilaterally deciding to make a change and editing disruptively. The consensus for a new style must be established by discussion and agreement with other Wikipedia editors. The Manual of Style explains the current consensus. You should discuss this subject there on the Talk page and see if people can be persuaded to change. Dabbler (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with Dabbler. Also, I have your talk on my watchlist DAFMM, so please do not copy and paste this discussion back to my talk page again or copy my comments over to other user's talk pages. Barret (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it onto your talk pages so that you had a copy. I will be commenting on the Manual of Style. Thanks. DAFMM.

Further to these comments, please do not insert periods into other abbreviations such as HMS, as you did here and here for example. This is specifically mandated against in the relevant manual of style. If a standardised style appears to exist it's probably best to keep to it, or to investigate further to see if you can find where the standard has been laid out. If you have trouble doing this, ask someone, and then raise the issue in a relevant place if you want to propose changes. But please don't continue to do perform edits that other users have asked you not to until the matter has been cleared up. As you can see it can create unnecessary tensions. There is no real rush to fix everything immediately on wikipedia, so you can afford to be thorough in your understanding of policies and the gathering of consensus. Benea (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I too have watchlisted this page, so you don't need to post this back to me either). Benea (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the advice given here on your talk, and consensus at the discussion you started at Manual of Style favouring the omission of full stops from initialisms, you continue to insert them between the post nominal titles in this article [1]. This is not the first time you have engaged in an edit war on this article ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). Please cease this disruptive type of editing or I will have no choice but to request administrator intervention. Barret (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have created a report at the edit warring noticeboard here. It is not my intention to have you blocked, I am much more interested in your editing adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. Barret (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig at MOS talk[edit]

Please note that it's easy to tap in four tildes to render the date automatically; and that the "th", "nd", "rd, are now not generally in use, especially on WP. Thanks. Tony (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. DAFMM.

MOS[edit]

Ok. DAFMM.

He says, without the auto-sig, which was the subject of my note. <sigh> Tony (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marquess of Maranhão[edit]

As my talk page is on your watchlists what do you think? There are copies on the Clan Cochrane and Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald talk pages.

From article Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald.

He was not succeded by his son in this title. Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and this is, for sure, one of this case. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true shouldn't it be Thomas Cochrane etc. Marquess do Maranhao and not Thomas etc. 1st Marquess do Maranhao? What do you think? I will research it.

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 10th August 2009.

P. S. I have just come accross this on Clan Cochrane article. What do you think? http://www.burkes-peerage.net/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=DUNDONALD

Administrator's Incidents Talk Pages[edit]

Posted on: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542.

Could we use this talk page to discuss incidents about ourselves?

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 4th August 2009.

P. S. Posted here on 10th August 2009.

Recent Talk Page Edits[edit]

Benea and BarretBonden,

Sorry for the recent edits on my talk page which is on your watchlist. I have been retrieving all of my discussions since I joined Wikipedia. I am sure you will agree that some are very interesting!!!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 10th August 2009.

P. S. I copied this here incase you haven't got it on your watchlist anymore.

Dorset needs YOU![edit]

What?

Since you are listed under Wikipedians in Dorset, I am hoping you may be interested in saving the article on Dorset. The article was promoted to featured status in 2005, when the standards for FA were not as strict, and therefore it is soon to be reviewed once again. Currently the article, if only for lack of references, would fail to pass the Featured article review.

How?

Your help, however much, will be vital in keeping this important article at FA. At WikiProject Dorset, the WP devoted to Dorset-related articles, we will be helping to organise restoration of the article. As well, there will be discussion on Dorset's talk page. If you know anyone else who may be interested in helping, contact them and/or copy this into their talk page. Please, do get involved!

Kind regards, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adminship[edit]

Just so you know you need to transclude your request onto the main RfA page. See the guide at WP:RFA. Ironholds (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

Ironholds,

Thanks very much for the information. Hopefully I will be successfull! Nowonder you got a Barnstar for kindness!!!

Thanks again.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 13th August 2009.

I've got to advise you that I honestly don't think you'll pass - the bar we set for adminship here is very high. You're welcome to try, but at the best of times RfA can be a gruelling process, and I'd hate to see you dissuaded from editing by a bad experience there. Ironholds (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I don't think so either. It will be a laugh! I can always try again! DAFMM (talk), 13th August 2009. P. S. If I fail is there anything less competitive I can help out in?

It isn't competitive so much as difficult. You're welcome to help out anywhere, really - the work you're doing on RN officers seems good, although you need to use referencing. Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know!!! The problem is is that I have used my on knowledge! When I have a spare minute I am going to do it! It's just getting around to it! I am a busy man. DAFMM (talk), 13th August 2009.

Fair enough. If you still want to run you need to transclude your Request for Adminship, btw. Ironholds (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Adminship[edit]

Everyone,

I am applying for administrator status here. Please help me and cast your opinion.

Thanks for your opinion and time.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 13th August 2009.

P. S. 'Cast your opinion' ends on Thursday 20th August 2009.

I'm just curious – why doesn't the time come up when you do your signature? By the way, don't be too disheartened by the RfA. :) – B.hotep •talk• 15:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your RfA prematurely, as this is not the right time for the community to support you. Don't be disheartened; many of our finest admins have failed their first RfAs. Best of luck for the future. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symonds reply:

N.: 'DAFMM Administrator'

Very civil considering you just closed it down! What a suprise you got your own day!!! It's like me saying to you don't be to disheartened it isn't my fault even though I admitted to closing down your account!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.

B. hotep reply:

N.: DAFMM Signature

I don't sign mine with the time, just the date.

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.

Edit warring complaint[edit]

Hello DAFMM. An editor has made a complaint about you at the edit warring noticeboard. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

N.: 'DAFMM Edit Warring'.

Thanks for the comment. I personally think this is ridiculous and against change just because the people against my are administrators, and I'm just a expeirenced editor. I am going to therefore take this further. Is there anything against my starting a page against administrators in my userspace - without causing controvesy? People can make there comments and we will see what people say about the powers and contacts of senior editors and administrators.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.

P. S. Where is the result of the complaint?

Warning re your style edits at Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald[edit]

The above Edit Warring case has been closed, and here's the result. Many people have told you that your preferred style is now out of favor in Wikipedia. You may be blocked if you continue to revert changes in this article that other editors have made to comply with the Manual of Style, unless you get consensus first. This includes any usage of 'Sir' that does not comport with the WP:MOS, and the insertion of periods in post-nominal initialisms such as OBE. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:DAFMM reported by User:BarretBonden (Result: Warned) (My Incident Copy)[edit]

Page: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User: DAFMM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor in question began adding full stops to initialisms on 3 August [7] and has resisted attempts to remove them ever since [8] [9] [10] [11]. I contacted him on his talk page and two other editors also advised him the edits were against a long standing consensus. It was suggested he create a discussion to establish a new consensus at Manual of Style. He created a discussion but the consensus favoured the omission of full stops from initialisms. He has since failed to engage in dialogue and refuses to heed the advice given to him. It is not the first time he has edit warred on this article: previously he repeatedly and incorrectly added the honorific prefix 'Sir' [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Despite efforts to discuss these edits with him [19], he blanked his talk page and continued to revert until given a 3rr warning [20]. DAFMM gave his views on resolving editing conflicts at his recent reqeust for adminship [21]. Barret (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Warned. Many people have told DAFMM that his preferred style is now out of favor in Wikipedia. I have warned him that he may be blocked if he continues to revert changes in this article that other editors have made to comply with the Manual of Style, unless he gets consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's like the pillory here! You're 'warned' he's given '15 hours' you 24 etc.! It's 'Pillory Club'! DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009. P. S. I will be taking this further. See EdJohnston's talk page.

DAFMM Edit Warring[edit]

Thanks for the comment. I personally think this is ridiculous and against change just because the people against my are administrators, and I'm just a expeirenced editor. I am going to therefore take this further. Is there anything against my starting a page against administrators in my userspace - without causing controvesy? People can make there comments and we will see what people say about the powers and contacts of senior editors and administrators.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.

P. S. Where is the result of the complaint?

Hello DAFMM. The result of the WP:AN3 complaint is here. I hope you are not surprised that Wikipedia has a 'house style' that we try to use in all of our articles. Since a common style is recommended, it may come to the attention of administrators that someone is trying to pioneer a brand-new style. (Or, it might be an old-fashioned style that Wikipedia has decided not to use here). EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You can only try. I have also started that page at User: DAFMM/AdministratorPowers. DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.

Good Barrister[edit]

Posted on the talk page of: User: BarretBonden.

You would make a good barrister - I liked your 'prosecution' (!) against me on my edit warring. It was actually very good.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.

FYI User:DAFMM (My Copy)[edit]

Just coming across a set of unusual edits from this editor, see difs: where he made an article an A-class, claiming to be Review Department coordinator of Wikiproject Aviation and campaign to put periods on non-sentence form captions. Can an editor please check some of the dubious claims made?

He's a rather eccentric editor in some senses. His grasp of policy is somewhat...limited, and occasionally he sets off making edits that he thinks are in line with the MOS, but in some cases are directly against it (undoing redlinks to 'tidy up' pages was another). He also seems to dislike it when talkpages don't exist for articles, so he edits something in and then immediately deletes it, as here for example. He has a sockpuppet called User:HandyTips (and had one called User:UniversityofOxford until that was pointed out to him as probably being a bad idea) that suggests he hasn't grasped the use of socks, or subpages, or the utility of wiki's own help pages. He also makes a lot of small edits to articles, to link and unlink terms, make small stylistic or punctuation changes. But I think he acts in good faith most of the time. In this instance I think he recently joined WP:AVIATION, saw a request to review Boeing 777 and did so, not realising that there was a process to go through, not realising that that signing in some sort of semi official capacity was a bad idea, etc. I don't think any administrator action is needed, perhaps just some firm and maybe intensive mentoring. Benea (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and that is why I brought the issue here and thought that rather than an admin, maybe an experienced editor would be the best person to sort out some of the odd submissions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I think a couple of users now have started to pick up on his activities. As you're a member of WP:AVIATION perhaps you could help him through how to review things properly (and why perhaps its best not to try to claim specific status in a wikiproject), or give him pointers as to areas he could help out in? I'll keep an eye on the contributions too, but I think he's genuinely keen to learn, even if you do have to reinforce the points sometimes. Maybe we could suggest to him that he consider Wikipedia:Mentorship, and direct him to try Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area if he feels so inclined. Benea (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think DAFMM would certainly benefit from wiki-adoption or something similar. You can see from my talk page and his talk page history (he usually deletes comments from his talk page) I have had some interaction with DAFMM, usually concerning minor MOS issues with his edits. He gets a little bit defensive and it often takes several messages to get my point across but I believe his edits are made in good faith and he is keen to help improve wikipedia. He just needs to start making use of wikipedia's help pages and take on board the advice given to him by other editors. BarretBonden (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if they are wrong? DAFMM (talk), 27th July 2009.

Administrator Powers[edit]

I have started a page here seeing how many people beleive that administrators are unjustly using their powers against other editors. Please cast your opinion on it's talk page.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.

Administrator Rights[edit]

From: User:DAFMM/AdministratorPowers

Please put your name down on this page if you think administrators are using there powers against other users. Are they also giving they're friends a lift up? Giving Wikipedia a community of administrator mates who meet in their local every night to discuss who to ruin next? Please discuss these questions on the talk page and cast your opinion and expierences. In my opinion Wikipedia is corrupt.

Thanks.

DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.

DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

List:

1. DAFMM (talk), leader, 16th August 2009.

Administrator Rights Talk[edit]

From: User:DAFMM/AdministratorPowers

Please discuss your opinions here.

DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

Marquess do Maranhao Research[edit]

Posted to: Tony1.

Thanks for all the research. You should be given one of them 'barnstars'! DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.

Offline[edit]

I will be offline for about 2 weeks now. Please do not hesitate to leave me messages here and I will try and get back to them as quick as I can. I will hopefully still be able to check it on a friends computer everyday still.

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.

Marquess do Maranhao[edit]

Posted to: Tonyjeff.

I will also help you. I won't have much chance for the next two weeks but after that I will have a look. It would definetly help a lot of articles. DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.

Marquess do Maranhao Research[edit]

Posted to: Tony1.

Wrong user! Sorry. DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.

Barnstar[edit]

Posted to: Tonyjeff (NOT ME!).

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	You may aswell have one now! Thanks again. DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.

DAFMM, thanks for your help!!! =) I have already posted a message at the Peerage forum, and contacted a few more sites (like Clan Cochrane in America). Also, what is this thing about Barnstar? Have I earned one? Cheers! --Tonyjeff (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've done enough work already! DAFMM (talk), 18th August 2009.

Native Speaking[edit]

Posted to: DragonflySixtySeven.

If you had enough sense to realise that I put that to get you back not as a true statement. I placed it there because you didn't use correct grammar (not capitals etc.).

DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.

An exciting opportunity to get involved![edit]

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Return[edit]

I'm back!!!

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Stock Exchange Scandal[edit]

Posted: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, talk page.

Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Marquess do Maranhao Research[edit]

Posted to: User: Tonyjeff.

How are you doing with it? Now that I am back 'online' I can start to help you a bit more.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Hi; it is not very good… No one answered me, so I am trying to find in any other source. Clan Cochrane of America, Peerage.com and False Titles.com did not answer. If you have any idea, please tell me. I think we should expose this problem in other Cochranes' articles, in order to correct that Maranhão peerage. Cheers. --Tonyjeff (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been researching it and found that the list of the Earls of Dundonald on the Earl of Dundonald article is saying that it is hereditary (I could have made them edits a while back). I don't want to change it until we have firm evidence and sources. I have made a comment on it's talk page, in reply to Czar Brodie. DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

I still can't find anything. I did think of contacting The Earl of Dundonald (I found his address) but he will just claim it is hereditary (politician!). Then we have got people in the Brazillian government but that is going to be a bugger! We'll have to think differently to the usual roots (great!). DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Marquess of Maranhão[edit]

From: Earl of Dundonald, talk page.

From article Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald.

He was not succeded by his son in this title. Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and this is, for sure, one of this case. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true shouldn't it be Thomas Cochrane etc. Marquess do Maranhao and not Thomas etc. 1st Marquess do Maranhao? What do you think? I will research it.

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 10th August 2009.

P. S. I have just come accross this on Clan Cochrane article. What do you think? http://www.burkes-peerage.net/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=DUNDONALD

my reference gives the current Earl of Dundonald as Marquess do Maranhao, and as wiki is about refernces that matter is clear to me. Do you have a reference to say Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and for this title in perticular? Where did you get the information that Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that can be relied upon. It doesn't even spell his correct titles correctly! With etc.. DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Marquess do Maranhão Hereditary?[edit]

Stock Exchange Scandal[edit]

Posted: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, talk page.

Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Let us start with the first paragraph:

Cochrane was tried and convicted as a conspirator in the Great Stock Exchange Fraud of 1814,
- That is true
although he maintained his innocence throughout his life.
- but putting this next to the first part casts doubt on his guilt - note the complete lack of citations
The summing up of the presiding judge, Lord Ellenborough, was biased against Cochrane.
- Where is the evidence?
Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against Cochrane indicated that possibly he had been the pawn of his uncle Andrew Cochrane-Johnstone, a conspirator.
- Some historians believe = weasel words
In 1830, Charles Grenville wrote how much he admired Cochrane, despite his guilt.
- Citation
- Who was Charles Grenville?
- Why is this of any significance?
- What kind of bias might he had have?
By the Victorian era, however, he was widely believed to have been innocent.
- he was widely believed = weasel words.

See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...

Rosemary West was tried and convicted for murder, although she maintained her innocence throughout her life. The summing up of the presiding judge was biased against West. Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against West indicated that possibly she had been the pawn of her husband Fred West. In 2019, Bill Smith wrote how much he admired West, despite her guilt. Many years after the crime, she was widely believed to have been innocent.

--Toddy1 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.

The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.

I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.

Et cetera.

Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!

I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

English[edit]

Posted to: Toddy1.

If you supposedly don't speak English you wrote that very well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Thomas Cochrane Bias[edit]

Posted to: BarretBonden, Dabbler and Benea.

Do you think that the section the the Stock Exchange Scandal on Thomas Cochrane's article reads biased? Please see the below.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Conversation:

Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Let us start with the first paragraph:

Cochrane was tried and convicted as a conspirator in the Great Stock Exchange Fraud of 1814,
- That is true
although he maintained his innocence throughout his life.
- but putting this next to the first part casts doubt on his guilt - note the complete lack of citations
The summing up of the presiding judge, Lord Ellenborough, was biased against Cochrane.
- Where is the evidence?
Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against Cochrane indicated that possibly he had been the pawn of his uncle Andrew Cochrane-Johnstone, a conspirator.
- Some historians believe = weasel words
In 1830, Charles Grenville wrote how much he admired Cochrane, despite his guilt.
- Citation
- Who was Charles Grenville?
- Why is this of any significance?
- What kind of bias might he had have?
By the Victorian era, however, he was widely believed to have been innocent.
- he was widely believed = weasel words.

See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...

Rosemary West was tried and convicted for murder, although she maintained her innocence throughout her life. The summing up of the presiding judge was biased against West. Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against West indicated that possibly she had been the pawn of her husband Fred West. In 2019, Bill Smith wrote how much he admired West, despite her guilt. Many years after the crime, she was widely believed to have been innocent.

--Toddy1 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.

The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.

I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.

Et cetera.

Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!

I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Cochrane Bias[edit]

Please see what I forwarded onto other editors.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Content forwarded:

Posted to: BarretBonden, Dabbler and Benea.

Do you think that the section the the Stock Exchange Scandal on Thomas Cochrane's article reads biased? Please see the below.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Conversation:

Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Let us start with the first paragraph:

Cochrane was tried and convicted as a conspirator in the Great Stock Exchange Fraud of 1814,
- That is true
although he maintained his innocence throughout his life.
- but putting this next to the first part casts doubt on his guilt - note the complete lack of citations
The summing up of the presiding judge, Lord Ellenborough, was biased against Cochrane.
- Where is the evidence?
Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against Cochrane indicated that possibly he had been the pawn of his uncle Andrew Cochrane-Johnstone, a conspirator.
- Some historians believe = weasel words
In 1830, Charles Grenville wrote how much he admired Cochrane, despite his guilt.
- Citation
- Who was Charles Grenville?
- Why is this of any significance?
- What kind of bias might he had have?
By the Victorian era, however, he was widely believed to have been innocent.
- he was widely believed = weasel words.

See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...

Rosemary West was tried and convicted for murder, although she maintained her innocence throughout her life. The summing up of the presiding judge was biased against West. Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against West indicated that possibly she had been the pawn of her husband Fred West. In 2019, Bill Smith wrote how much he admired West, despite her guilt. Many years after the crime, she was widely believed to have been innocent.

--Toddy1 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.

The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.

I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.

Et cetera.

Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!

I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Forcefullness[edit]

Posted to: Toddy1.

Stop accusing other editors with edit warring. It is uncivil. It is you who are reverting back to edits nobody agreed upon: edits that concentrate on merely removing referenced material, just because one editor doesn't like a respected author mentioning a fact. Removing a referenced source without discussing it, based on own OR is unacceptable. It is very uncivil then to accuse others of edit warring, while you are essentially doing it - over a tiny issue that has very little relevance to the whole article, and which is only important to some fanatics. Who the heck cares wheater the PoW had 2, 3,4 or 5 guns operating. The point is that it limped away because most of them were not working. Kurfürst (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not notice that three other editors had developed an improved text. So saying edits nobody agreed upon is not really true.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text was hardly improved, it was merely a resulting in a wall of text due to simple reason that a single fanatic was unwilling to accept a simple fact, and was trying to find excuses to remove it. Time after time. Now the silly thing contested is gone, and the article is not missing anything with that. Problem solved - do you really think that devoting some 3000 character wall of nonsense, that violated wiki principles on several accounts (OR, synthesis, primary sources etc.), much of it being the fringe theory of a single editor, was actually an improvement to the article...? Wiki says identify common points, but what was produced there was merely tit-for-tat arguements over a non-issue. Kurfürst (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you shouldn't be as forceful and commanding in your bossiness.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Rare?[edit]

Posted: Titan Beetle, talk page.

How rare are they?

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Titan Beetle[edit]

Posted: WikiProject: Arthropods, talk page.

How rare are they?

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Bias[edit]

From: BarretBonden.

Thanks for letting me know about the discussion, DAFMM. I have replied on the article's talk page. Barret (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maranhão[edit]

Hehe, yeah, I think that mr. Dundonald would not loose his title so easily, but at least you could listen his side of the story so we may try to understand on which basis they claim this title. Perhaps, he has some sort of document – the point is that the question must be as technical as possibel, in order to avoid political answers.

The Brazilian government will not be able to answer it, other than they do not recognize any Imperial title – here we have a terrible lack of historical memory…

I am going to reach some monarchist and genealogist circles here. I know also that the last Brazilian King of Arms did have a notebook (a scrap of a would-be-book) and it is at the Arquivo Nacional (biggest Brazilian library, in Rio de Janeiro). It is very, very difficult to access it, but it's another possibility. Perhaps, mr. Sainty? Let's keep in touch. --Tonyjeff (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

It's all pushing it though!!! I might try The Earl of Dundonald. DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009. P. S. Let's keep in touch anyway!

Please do not copy whole sections to my Talk page[edit]

Please do not copy whole sections from other Talk pages into my Talk page. It is quite unnecessary, first of all as a regular editor I am likely to be watching the page and so can see the edits made to the article Talk page. If you want to draw my attention to the conversation, all you have to do is put a short note on my page asking me to look at the article Talk page.

As I do watch Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, I did see the comments made there about the possible bias over the trial. I have not yet commented because I am trying to find my source books (you will notice that I put in the fact that his grandson was given £40000 in compensation for the false conviction and I sourced it). If and when I find my sources and no one else has added references, then I will do so. In the meantime, your time would be better spent finding references that state that Ellenborough was biassed and that Cochrane was unfairly convicted and adding them to the article to refute the suggestion rather than arguing with people on the Talk page. Dabbler (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

I placed it on your talk page to ask for your advice and so that you had a copy of it there. I thought it would be more convenient for you to be a ble to see it in front of you than having to go off and find the talk page in question. I placed it on your talk page because I wondered what you thought as you are a 'regular editor'.

I reply to the 'arguing' I was only getting my opin ion on the subject accross.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009.

BarretBonden seems to have done a good job on rewriting it so the dispute seems to be over with.

With etc..

DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009.