User talk:Lord Emsworth/Archive 8

Elizabeth I

Thanks for your response to my message of September 7:

"Saying that Elizabeth's religious views were held only to "suit her own ambitions" is ipso facto non-neutral. The description of the manner in which the Irish insurrection of 1583 was put down is not neutral, insomuch as it paints the English as cruel and oppressive. "Appalling" is inherently not a neutral phrase. I hope that these explanations suffice; if not, we could discuss it further." -- Emsworth 00:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC).

Further:

For the remainder of her reign, the staunchly Catholic Mary persecuted Protestants, and came to be known as "Bloody Mary" because of a desire to present her assertion of authority as cruel. She urged Elizabeth to take the faith, but the princess kept up a skilful show of allegiance to suit her own conscience and ambitions.

Your Ipso facto is a term in logic - it doesn't work in the carry-on of history. What I'm expressing is an opinion, one well recognised in the literature; without such opinion we can't understand Elizabeth's government. Also, I think you overlook the relation of ambition to the show of allegiance; in other words, if you object to "ambition" then you ought also to object to "show". If you wish, I will cite authority - but don't stick an NPOV on it.

In 1580, Pope Gregory XIII sent a force to aid Desmond Rebellions in Ireland, but failed; the rebellion itself was put down by 1583 after a campaign waged by fire, sword and famine, in which almost the entire population of the western part of the province of Munster appears to have died; chilling observations on the campaign are set out in A View of the Present State of Ireland by the poet, Edmund Spenser (first licensed for publication in 1633).

This is a statement of fact with a concrete reference, which asserts cause but does not judge or censure; the word chilling is descriptive of the effect achieved by Spenser's literary art. As the reader, you may conclude that the English were cruel and oppressive, but that conclusion is not part of my statement and I never drew it. So, my statement shouldn't be substituted with the dull school-boy metaphor crushed.

Appalling, when applied to the losses of the Spanish Armada in the Atlantic storms of 1588, is a description of the event according to human response, without judgment or censure. Why object?

Reviewing the above quotations, might you not have ipso facto applied an NPOV to the words staunchly (say, faithful), or persecuted (say, punished), insomuch as they inherently promote a prejudice of, say, yourself or someone else? Or am I confused? Please explain this Wikipedia thing to me, again.

Thanks.

I see your revisions to my revisions under line-headings 25, 70 and 78. What! You say NPOV - please state how my revisions deviate from neutral.--shtove 00:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA ABUSE Ril, (81.156.177.21). FS?

Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.

RIL - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator - User:Melissadolbeer - see the user's edit history, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by Jerome which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Ebionites). It also contains material presenting Eusebius's views of what was Biblical Canon - better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and Gospel of Matthew, at the suggestion of User:Wetman. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of recieving abuse from me, 81.156.177.21, doc, Slrubenstien, Wetman, etc. (whom Melissadolbeer claims to be sockpuppets of one-another) are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Wikipedia, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD. ~~~~ 19:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Papal election

Since the Vatican itself is saying the Pope's death is imminent, it appears that your Papal election featured article will soon be on the main page. Good job and very good timing. →Raul654 16:58, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Royal surnames

According to Buckingham Palace, whom I consulted, the British Royal Family does have a surname. That was reflected in the actions of George V and Elizabeth II to designate surnames alongside Royal House names for their heirs. It is also reflected in the decision of Queen Victoria to ask what her surname was. According to the Palace Victoria's surname was Wettin. It was on the basis of the advice of the Queen's advisors, after consultation with, and agreement with, other wikipedians, that that surname was put into the articles. As it was agreed on wikipedia on the time, and given that the Palace confirmed it was the correct name to use, I am going to revert the changes you made to put back in what is the correct name. I hope that is OK. Slán. FearÉIREANN 20:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Royal surnames

Thanks for the comment. The Palace said, as did historians I consulted at the time, that the Royal Family has two names, a dynastic name and a personal name. If tomorrow (and I would be sorry if it happens) the UK became a republic and the royals' dynastic names and titles were prohibited as often happens when republics are created, HM the Queen and her children would have to use their surnames. The Palace was 100% certain that they do possess them, to extent of saying that if a republic was declared, the Prince of Wales would be Mr. Charles Mountbatten-Windsor. One senior official at court said, and I shouldn't be saying this publicly, that HM said of Diana at the time of the Morton book, "That woman won't be happy until I'm plain Mrs Elizabeth Windsor!" Another in the Prince of Wales's office spoke of a loud row between Charles and Camilla which he overheard where the latter, saying how it was unwise to think of marrying, told him "If you're not careful in how you handle things, you won't be a prince, you'll be Mr Windsor". Charles snapped back "Charles Mountbatten-Windor. And you'll be Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor." Camilla apparently joked that she started off with one short name and ended up with husbands with tongue-twisters of names! That's when I began to warm to the woman. I love that sense of humour. FearÉIREANN 21:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

attn: Lord Emsworth

Hi. Even after extensive editing of an article we do not own them in the fasion of a dictator. As Wales said in a recent talk [1], "Basically what we say about a revert is that, a revert is slapping somebody in the face. Basically, sort of traditional in the old movies with the white gloves [...] it's not really hitting them, but it's an insult to revert something". That said, there are practical reasons why MLA format suits the encyclopedia well. The first is that it provides the audience with an indicator as to the last time the page was working via the "Retrieved" section. The next is that it provides the user a copyright date, which informs our audience as to the age of the information to be found on the page. In addition, it shows who the author is, who the publisher is if appropriate, and it also looks professional. Now, if you prefer APA format and it is able to provide all of this information to our audience I think that is ok. However, your links are currently simple hyperlinks and are not carrying nearly as much meta-information as they could. This is very important. So please either format the links properly in APA format so that they carry as much meta-information as possible, or re-revert my edit.

1. Mingus, Brian (2005). Jimmy Wales lecture at Stanford University on 2/9/2005. Retrieved April 2, 2005.

--Alterego 02:13, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Silly vandalism to royal articles, please help

Ooohhh noooo, I can't stand it... 69.157.180.67 has been having a lovely time inserting "His/Her Majesty" and "His Eminence" and such stuff at the head of a great pile of royal etc. articles! I reverted Charles II, that I'm watching, and then I clicked on the anon's contributions... I almost wish I hadn't. I'm sorry, but I just can't face fixing them all, I'm hoping you can. ( I have written a note on the anon's talk page.) Best, --Bishonen|Talk 07:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Earls of Arundel

Some of those are having a go at making sure that Wikipedia covers all topics other major encyclopedias do. We found that one major encyclopedia has an article about Thomas Fitzalan, 5th Earl of Arundel, 11th Earl of Surrey. Our article about the same guy is at Thomas FitzAlan, 12th Earl of Arundel. Now Earl of Arundel does mention some problems with the numbering - e.g. some people don't count the first 5, but I don't see how to reconcile 12th and 5th between the two encyclopedias. Are you in a position to check our articles are error-free? Or could you recommend someone who could? Many thanks, Pcb21| Pete 14:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The men we have listed as 6th and 7th earls are very often not counted, because they were not recognized as earls in their lifetimes. So, the counting starts with the one we have as 8th, sometimes. Medieval peerage numbering is extremely non-uniform. john k 15:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duchess of Cornwall

The article is at Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall - and I understand you agree that that is where it should be. We need to follow Wikipedia style, which is to refer to the title of the article in the first sentence, preferably as the first words. Therefore we must call here the Duchess of Cornwall first. (Also, everyone else is calling her that - it's not for Wikipedia to go out on a limb with a different style - we should just report what everyone else is saying.)

I note also that the first paragraph notes that she is technically the Princess of Wales, and it seems sensible to refer to that there.

Finally, please note that, if we end up keep reverting each other, you will run out of reverts before me - I'd rather not have to go there. Kind regards, jguk 12:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just stop this

You are being disruptive now! Everyone is calling her "Duchess of Cornwall" first and foremost. Arguing otherwise will be contrary to NPOV and NOR policies. Desist! jguk 12:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As noted above, I think it is appropriate to note that she is technically the Princess of Wales in the first paragraph. But on first mention we should use the name that everyone is using for her - which is also the article title. Anything more is POV (just as MacKinley's question in the Commons was deliberately there to kick up some fuss), jguk 12:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen the formulation "The Princess Charles, the Duchess of Cornwall". The Royal Family's own website just uses the formulation "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall" - which admittedly is a different style than that adopted by the Kents, for example, but that's the formulation that is being used - so that's what we should use. If this changes, then we would then have to change to reflect that change, jguk 12:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My point is that we should use terms that people actually use. By all means note technicalities somewhere, but the most prominent terms should be those that are in real everyday use, jguk 12:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we were to use all her titles, we'd have a pretty cumbersome first sentence. Best to start off with what everyone calls her - which is the same as what the article title is (and we're agreed that it's the right article title). Note the details after the first sentence, jguk 12:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Order of Precedence in Scotland

I see that you've reversed one of my edits adding the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to the order of precedence for ladies in Scotland. The office has in the past been held by woman (Lady Fraser), and she would have held precedence as Lord High Commissioner during the tenure of her office. So I can't see why you have deleted this entry.--George Burgess 19:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help clarifying two nobles

I'm in the process of writing an article on Crathie and Crathie Kirk, and I read (in [1]) that Edward VII donated two medallions in honour of the "Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and of Princess Victoria, Queen of Prussia". Would I be correct in thinking these two people really are his sister Princess Victoria, Princess Royal and brother Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? I'm afraid I can't find documentation for a date of the endowment or any other source better than the one quoted above. Thanks. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kibbutzing into Emsworth's space, again (why does nobody come to me with peerage questions?), but it would seem likely that this is correct. The link you point to says that they were donated "in memory" of the Duke and the Queen, and, indeed, Alfred died in 1900 and Victoria in 1901, so this would make sense in terms of Edward being king. john k 23:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is ironic that individuals ask me when there are far more knowledgible people like you (and formerly Proteus). -- Emsworth 23:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks both for helping unfankle the bizantine complexities of the Windsor family. I confess I did go to Proteus first, and was saddened to find he's left. Perhaps there should be a wikipedia:domain experts page that lists who to go to in order to ask questions about a given topic. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 00:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Camilla

I don't know, this is a particularly irritating thing, because there are a number of questions at issue. Personally, I think it would be best to have the first part be "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, styled HRH The Duchess of Cornwall." I also think that the name "Camilla Parker-Bowles" should be mentioned somewhere in the intro, since that is how she is still best known. I'm not sure how to even do a vote, since there's a bunch of stuff at issue, I think. john k 22:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on your 50th FA. (I am assuming that Palace of Westminster would pass - which I believe would). JuntungWu 14:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My I extend mine, too?

You keep proving yourself an invaluable contributor.

Thank you.

James F. (talk) 15:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. I owe a recent quiz bowl victory to your peerage articles. :-) — Dan | Talk 23:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Rank the following in order of precendence: Earl, Baron, Duke, Marquess, Viscount" or something like that. As this was US high school quiz bowl, it isn't terribly esoteric stuff, but it did happen to be the tiebreaking question. — Dan | Talk 00:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas I (the Great)

I see that you are the user who changed the article on Pope Nicholas I to refer to his being titled "Great", which is in question (and now of more interest after the death of JPII). Many people think only Pope Gregory I and Pope Leo I deserve that title. Do you remember what it was which made you think that he deserved that title? Can you offer a source? GreetingsEarthling 07:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you would mind giving your sources for the title "The Great" for Pope Nicholas I as I can find no reference for this and it also impacts on the Pope John Paul II article. Most sources I have read do not give him this title and so it is therefore controversial--File Éireann 10:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both GreetingsEarthling and File Éireann, if you disagree with "the Great" and cannot find it sourced be bold and remove it. If Emsworth disagrees with your action, he will present a reasonable source and it may be reinserted. — Oldak Quill 14:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments into references

Sorry, I had already made an edit by the time I got your message. I hope you don't mind my describing the references in this way, I think that when it's a description on the reference rather than just a link to a particular section then it helps readers to know which reference they get for further information on their point of interest.

P.S. I've come up with one more objection, lack of coverage of the grounds, but I'm putting a short section in (probably with red links for now) which will partly cover it. Mozzerati 15:42, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Papal conclaves template

Hi Em,

Sorry if you were unhappy with the revertion of your removal of the template. I agree that whomever placed it placed it wrongly. I agree the list should be removed. The fact that the list in the template only goes back to 1800 and no further is simply temporary. That is as far my research has gone. I intend to do articles on earlier conclaves. As I do the dates will be adjusted to incorporate them. 1800 seemed a handy cut-off point for the first batch of articles. (Indeed while I started most of them I had the pleasure of finding when I logged in that other as of yet unstarted articles had been written by other wikipedians. While the standards of some of those ones started by others wasn't always great (the academic in me always wants to see a certain consistency of quality and style) they are at least a beginning.

Unfortunately for reasons beyond my control I cannot correct the papal election article tonight. (I'm finishing some extra bits in the U2 article and then going to bed!) But I intend to do it on Tuesday night. I do think it is worth putting in the template straight away. I think such templates help create a certain visual unity to a set of articles and even with the (for the moment) surviving list also is worth having. I'll get my editing claws into the article hopefully tomorrow. Slán. FearÉIREANN 00:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HELP

Please unblock me (User:Fish Supper).

"Jayjg" has blocked me claiming I have violated 3RR on Historicity of Jesus, which I haven't edited once!!!.

And if he is talking about Jesus, then he has blocked me without blocking User:Slrubenstein as well, who made 4 more reverts than me!!!, like he is corrupt and biased or something.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Fish_Supper. User is also suspected of being a sockpuppet of banned User:CheeseDreams. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

References for Peerage

Do you have some good resources available that you can use to reference that article? It's a shame to have it have none, and I'd like to clear off as many as possible from my list of featured articles without references. I'm assuming you'd have some around that you've used for other articles and could add appropriately to this one. Inline citations would be ideal, but some at the end would be better than none. Thanks - Taxman 23:37, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Most excellent, thank you. - Taxman 14:55, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Papabile

I notice that you just added some duplicated material from the speculation-about-the-2005-conclave article (which desperately needs to be recast in the past tense no matter what User:Jtdirl says) into the Papabile article.This makes it enormously more difficult for me to add material that I had expected to add later this year which would properly precede the material you added (I can NOT cut-and-paste,interpolating requires me to retype by hand everything below what I add and certain characters are not available to me).Any reason you think it important for this material to be in two places?

Just learned from your user page that you're sixteen...had not realized that!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.Basically,once Pope Benedict XVI names some cardinals (within a year) I'd like to keep a running list of apparent papabili,changing over time with retirements,promotions,deaths,etc...the time is not yet,but that duplicated material would have to move to make room.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 00:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles

In view of your outstanding efforts to add to and maintain the corpus of featured articles on Wikipedia - 50 out of 580 featured articles, nearly 10% of the total and roughly 3 times the nearest challenger - you are hereby my hero of the day and here is a gold star (I hope you won't take offence at being awarded an ex-Soviet honour). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

William III of England

Before you revert any edits, read Talk:William III of England/Archive 1#House and House of Orange-Nassau. There you will see that W3 >was< of the House of Orange Nassau. Anyway, the edit now seems to be about where I put it. MH 18:29, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

New invisible notes system

Hi and congratulations on getting your 50th featured article. Don't let the pedants get you down. But, to help you deal with us, I have a new system of invisible notes. Please see Template talk:inote. Would you be willing to use it for inline references? Ideally reference name / page number & possibly comment. That would help with verification. Mozzerati 13:30, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm only really here on a trial run, though, to see if I can cope with WP without tearing my hair out. :-) Proteus (Talk) 17:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Titling query

Hello, Emsworth, as Wikipedia's foremost guru on style and titles, I hope you can assist us with a discussion we've been having at Talk:Stanley Bruce, 1st Viscount Bruce over the correct title of the page. Firstly, should it be 1st Viscount Bruce or 1st Viscount Bruce of Melbourne? Secondly, given that Bruce was not ennobled to after the end of his Prime Ministerial career, is it appropriate that his page be titled with his noble title at all? My reading of the policy at Names and Titles was that PM's should be under their names during their Prime Ministership, not under any subsequent names. Cheers, Slac speak up! 01:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, Emsworth. Thanks for your vote at my adminship nomination. I appreciate the support. Cheers! — Trilobite (Talk) 14:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

various stuff

I noticed your to do list - does it deal with putting succession boxes at the bottom of those people's articles? If so, I have a duplicate, it seems, at User:Ugen64/British Government.

Also - have you decided on a first choice for university? I am simply curious :) ugen64 22:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't think you had decided - surely you would have good chances wherever you apply? Anyway, I digress. A list like the one you propose would be handy, although I'm a bit worried that people will stumble onto that page and start putting up succession boxes using the wrong format and such, then cross them off and confuse us all. But perhaps I'm only paranoid... ugen64 22:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... we could use yours, as it's way more complete than mine. Are you putting all of the offices a person held in succession boxes, or only the office that you're crossing off the list? ugen64 23:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peerages

My Lord, I gather from the debate about Stanley Bruce that we have a rule that peerage titles are not to be used in article headings when the person was better known by their pre-peerage name. In that case you might like to consider moving John Forrest, 1st Baron Forrest of Bunbury, since he was Sir John Forrest for most of his public life and was only given his peerage shortly before his death. On the other hand there is another John Forrest currently in the Australian House of Reps so there may be a disambiguation issue. Adam 07:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The situation with Forrest is very complicated. He was never actually a peer - he was told he was to be created one and on his way to the UK to claim his title he died, before the title had actually been created. (And the title was to be "Baron Forrest", not "Baron Forrest of Bunbury" - the opposite of Lord Bruce of Melbourne's situation.) He is sometimes referred to as "Lord Forrest", but he never actually was that. (Also, the rule is not that the peerage is not to be used if they are better known by their pre-peerage name, but that it is not to be used if they are absolutely always referred to without it - it's not simply a matter of which is more common.) Proteus (Talk) 11:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• In that case the Forrest article should be moved. (Question: At what point in the ennobling process does a person actually become a peer?)
• On your second point: if the rule is as you say, then a lot of the articles without the title ought to have one. As I have said elsewhere, Stanley Bruce was and is frequently called Lord Bruce, and Anthony Eden (for example) is certainly sometimes refered to as the Earl of Avon. Adam 13:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To answer your first question, I believe that a person becomes a peer when the letters patent are actually issued and sealed. -- Emsworth 13:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of the rule is that, basically, if the person was only made a peer after retirement, and their whole public life was spent without a title, we don't use it. Also, authors and so forth who are better known by the name they write under, and so forth. But people like Disraeli, who is better known as Disraeli, but also sometimes Beaconsfield, get the peerage title. john k 14:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is not what Proteus said above. Could the three of you come up with a definitive ruling on this? Adam 00:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Article I

I have reverted your edit to the intro of Article I of the United States Constitution because, unfortunately, it is just wrong. I invite you to read the Constitution and see what the 4th clause of Article I, Section 9 actually says before you edit this paragraph again. Thanks. RussBlau 17:37, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was the one who was wrong. I made the error of relying on the Wikisource text of the Constitution, which was not properly divided into clauses. (I've fixed that.) When I referred to my printed copy, I realized my error. RussBlau 17:49, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • No problem, we all make mistakes. -- Emsworth 17:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wives of peers

Is Edith Vane-Tempest-Stewart, Marchioness of Londonderry the correct formulation? I'm amazed she has no article, but maybe I have her title wrong. Adam 00:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Your Page

• Just a quick question, what are the asterisked articles? The ones that have been on the main page? Harro5 (talk · contribs) 01:12, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Sceptre with the Cross

Hi, just wanted to leave a note in case its not on your watchlist; since you created the article, had a question when you get a chance, thanks. Stbalbach 03:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

hello

Greetings, your Lordship. I recently suggested, on the Talk:Buckingham Palace page, that we create a series of articles on the various positions at the Palace and at Windsor Castle, such as Fendersmith, Timekeeper, and so on. It struck me that you'd be a perfect person to work on these, and I'm wondering if you have any ideas on how to organize them. Exploding Boy 21:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

head of state

You may want to look at Government of Australia. One user is intent on claiming that the Governor-General is the head of state. Others have disagreed but to no avail. User:Adam Carr is convinced at this stage that the user is a troll. I am suspicious. Independent observers would be welcome. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 00:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If you are a sixteen year old user in the United States then I am a banana. JPF 17:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thai titles

He's certainly exceedingly well-informed for a 16yo, but I always believe what people say about themselves here unless I have evidence to the contrary.

What I came here to say was: My Lord, do you have an opinion on whether Maha Vajiralongkorn ought to be moved to Vajiralongkorn, Crown Prince of Thailand? What form do we use for other Crown Princes? Your comments at the Talk page welcome. Adam 02:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My Lord , The name Vajiralongkorn was chosen when he was born and the prefix Maha was added later in 1972 when he was given the Crown Prince title . Accordingly , it seems to us , Thai , that the use of Vajiralongkorn and Crown Prince of Thailand is irrelevent . Maha Vajiralongkorn , Crown Prince of Thailand is more appropriate . To my knowledge , name of a member of the royal family must begin with a phrase explaining relation to the present king . In this case , Somdech Phra Boroma Orasadhiraj can be roughly translated as son of the king . The second part is the real name . The third , if there is one , is tutelage or honorific title . Yuegyue 20:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Stars behind your featured articles

Good afternoon, Mylord! ;-) What do the little stars in the list of your featured articles mean? For example "Article One of the United States Constitution*". Greetings from Germany --slg 15:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Did you know that you were mentioned in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung last December?)

I believe they're the ones that have appeared as the daily featured article on the main page, but I could be wrong. Proteus (Talk) 17:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proteus is correct; those are the articles that have appeared on the main page. -- Emsworth 17:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

templates

User:SimonP is up to his old tricks over templates and categories. He has now proposed deleting Template:Crowns on the template for deletion page.[2] Going by his past antics on Category:Westminster System[3] and Template:Commonwealth Realms [4] he's trying to delete a template that pulls all the articles on the topic together, then he'll start subcategorising all the articles and we'll end up with a complicated, user-unfriendly mess of a category. Your opinions and observations would be welcome. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 21:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Titles

Someone just created several pages like Lord Lieutenant of Argyll and Bute -that one with just one unwikified entry. I thought you would be the one to know if they are useful or improvable. Rmhermen 13:44, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Use of inote rather than HTML comments

Hi; I like your inline references in United States Senate, but I've seen that you have put them into HTML comments. I wonder if you would mind if I convert them to inote based notes. This just puts {{inote|<your reference here>}} instead of <!--<your reference here>-->. Inotes don't show anything at all, so there is no difference for the reader of the article. What they do, however, is record a link to the article in the wikipedia database (e.g. what links here from Template:inote) which will mean that later, when a configurable notes system is generated, or when the Fact and reference checkers are going through articles, it will be easy to update those articles automatically. Could you consider using inote in future? Mozzerati 22:28, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

This is Milesli. If you don't like my modification on the Order of the Bath page, whould you please also undo my handiwork on the Order of St. Michael and St. George and Order of the British Empire pages. Thanks :-)

British Orders

Sorry Lord Emsworth - I've undone my handiwork, so you don't have to undo it for me. Thanks. Milesli

The Queen's Guard

My Lord,

This is a bit of an odd question, but do you know what happens to someone who touches a member of the Queen's Guard outside Buckingham Palace? I have a friend who just returned from the UK who says that her tour guide warned her that, should she touch one, she'd be bayonetted in the foot. Could this possibly be true?

Yours, Wally 21:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found that highly unlikely myself. Although I suppose it's possible — after all, the Guardsman could've been a Scot. ;) Wally 23:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question as to precedence

My Lord,

I recently was looking at the page for Frances Davidson, the Viscountess Reading (by marraige), who was created a life peer as Baroness Northchurch in her own right. When such a situation arises — a woman who is wife of a peer and a peeress of lower rank in her own right — by which title is she to be addressed?

Also, I was wondering about the policy regarding pages for titles created only once and held by only one person. I merged the page Marquess Curzon of Kedleston with George Curzon, as he was the only one to hold the title; that was reverted, and after some dialogue I seemed to discover that what I was doing perhaps was not standard practice, as I'd thought. Is it proper to merge the title page with singular holders, or is it not? If so, is this a well-defined standard on the Wiki? If not, why?

That's what I've been doing in the past, and intend to do in the future. Having pages for single holders is just messy, when the titles themselves obviously do not deserve entries. Wally 03:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Royal consorts and monarchs

hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [5] cheers Antares911 00:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

contribution

Your observations on the proposed move of deceased consorts to their consort names rather than the academic standard maiden name/title would be welcome. Otherwise we could very soon find outselves having Mary of Modena and Mary of Teck as Queen Mary and Queen Mary, Elizabeth of York and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as Queen Elizabeth and Queen Elizabeth. And Catherine of Aragon, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr as Queen Catherine, Queen Catherine and Queen Catherine! The user wanting to make the change is very genuine about it but doesn't seem to understand the reason why deceased consorts are referred to by maiden name/title rather than consort name. [6] FearÉIREANN^(talk) 29 June 2005 01:17 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)

PS I know you're not actually British, but the wording in the category does say "and participants of..."

I'm afraid that the category might be misleading when one first looks at the page, so I think that I shall remove it. --

New Hampshire General Court

Hello, just wanted to clarify something on your edit to the NH General Court article, it would probably be more appropriate to not consider the Lok Sabha as an English speaking legislature, but rather as a multi-lingual Legislature, considering the special considerations towards potential minorities of Anglo-Indian legislators, and transcripts being done in multiple languages afterwards.[7].

Your resume is pretty impressive, hopefully i'll get that many good articles under my belt with time. --Karmafist 3 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Emsworth, I just wanted to say thanks for your support of my RfA :-) Craigy (talk) July 5, 2005 20:37 (UTC)

Wilson QUotation

I see that you have made extensive edits of the articles on the US House and Senate. I am displeased that you removed so many quotations. Did you remove a quotation from Woodrow Wilson's Congressional government about how the Senate's power over taxes and appropriations was, in practice, equal to the House's? That was a very powerful illustration of how a Constitutional principle is not practiced, and, IMO, should not have been removed. Dinopup 7 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)

Quotations

I am not aware of a no-quotation convention. Scores of articles, even FAs, have quotations in them. A quotation from a person as important as Woodrow Wilson demonstrates that an opinion expressed has some authority behind it. You or I could say "the Senate has as much budgetary and tax power as the House" but who cares about what anonymous wikipedia writers think?

Also, wikipedia's prose should be free of bias. If information is conveyed in a quotation at least it is clear to the reader that he is indeed reading an opinion. Dinopup 8 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that the quotations are back in. Wilson's Congressional Government is a book that is worth reading for someone who is into poli sci. It's interesting for its subject and its author. Curiously, in the 19th century Americans were less reverential towards the Constitution than we are now.Dinopup 19:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion sought

I have re-opened the issue of the royal stub at [8]. I think having it produce a noble link is farcical. Those who did it originally were no doubt well meaning but I don't think they really understood what they were doing. Nobility and royalty are not the same. Your opinions would be welcomed.

FearÉIREANNFile:Irish flag.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 7 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Template:European Commission President

Hi, I am going to phase out this template that you have created because it offers nothing that Template:Succession box does not. I just wanted to tell you of my intentions (and get your comments) for when I put it on WP:TFD gren 05:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Whose monarchy is it, anyway?

"British monarchy" has different meanings, and many people do not find the distinction between the constitution roles of the British monarchy within and outside the UK to be obvious. The disambig line is the path of least resistance. If you disagree, contribute to Talk:British monarchy. Peter Grey 14:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Palace of Westminster

Greetings, most brilliant and most juvenile user of the English-speaking Wikipedia ! :=)

You might be pleased to learn that the French translation of one of your many masterpieces, Palace of Westminster, is now complete ! See fr:Palais de Westminster for further details. Also, feel free to check some of the extra pictures I've found and added to the translation, including a painting by Claude Monet or a picture depicting the death of Spencer Perceval.

Congratulations for all your hard work,

Manchot sanguinaire - July 16th 2005, 16:04 PM

Et en plus, tu parles un bon français ?! Voilà qui est très impressionnant. Merci en tout cas pour ta petite correction à propos du Judges' Woolsack. J'espère avoir l'occasion, un jour, de traduire un autre de tes articles.

Manchot sanguinaire - July 17th 2005, 12:03 PM

"Minor" edits to Congress of the United States

You may have a setting off in your preferences. All of your edits to the article Congress of the United States are listed as minor, even though several of them (such as this one) make drastic changes to the article. Mateo SA | talk 01:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Great work!

Emsworth - I just wanted to let you know that I think you do a wonderful job on the featured articles, and all of us who inhabit the FAC are glad to have you around. →Raul654 04:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Peerage

It appears an anon has decided that Category:Peerage is too Anglo-centric and that it should be renamed [9]. Your input would be appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes

You seem to know a bit about this, or at least more than I do. I was wikifying John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes and it seems to have a factual error (see the Talk page). Do you have any idea what the correct answer is? JRP 15:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

styles

Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Royal styles of Lord Emsworth/Archive 8

Papal styles of Pope Paul VI

Monarchical styles of Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary

Styles of James V

Presidential styles of Lord Emsworth/Archive 8
File:Ie pres.png

Styles of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

Substantive title

Hi, I noticed a number of our articles about royalty/nobility used the phrase "substantive title", but we didn't have an article on it. I did a little research on the Web (alas, my otherwise fairly amazing private library is not long on books about royalty/nobility :-), and whipped up a short article to full the void. As I'm not an expert in this area, I'd be grateful if you could take a gander at it and see if it has any howlers, needs any extra material, etc, etc. Thanks! Noel (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Prince

Also, if you have time and energy, you might want to take a look at Prince - it's a mess. I cleaned it up a bit, but it still has a long way to go. Noel (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Congrats

Congradulations on yet another featured article notch on your belt. →Raul654 02:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

SCOTUS article

I have been away for the last two weeks, so I was unable to respond to your comment until today. I support the changes you've made to the article. Contragratulations on getting it to featured status. Deus Ex 15:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

going live

Hiya,

The discussion seems to have gone all quiet on the proposed styles solution, though I have tried to get it going again. There is from what was said a clear consensus on using this solution. I'm going to start putting in the papal box to see if it will work. Is that OK with you?

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Hiya,

royal babies

Have you visited VfD's of Prince Sigismund of Prussia, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich of Russia, Prince Felix of Denmark and Prince Nikolai of Denmark. They are different cases of royal children, whose notability is questionable (for different reasons), and theior articles tend to be full of royal nursery crap, lamentations, hollow information etc. 217.140.193.123 14:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

interview request

Hello Lord Elmsworth,

I’m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/). We are researching peer-produced, digital works of history, such as history articles in Wikipedia, as part of a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on Wikipedia, and User:Raul654 suggested that I contact you. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Olivia

oryan at gmu dot edu

Mention on the radio

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that you got a very positive mention on BBC Radio Five Live last night. The host was discussing the remarkable nature of Wikipedia's anti-elitism which means that a 16-year-old can produce the majority of such a well written, and researched, article as the one on Peerage. Rje 16:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Scottish Coat of Arms

What do you think should be the Coat of Arms displayed on the Scotland page? An edit war has been started by User:Mais oui! who wants to use the old arms of the King of Scotland, rather than the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland. See Talk:Scotland. Astrotrain 21:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

NB — I am going through and disambiguating. The arms Astrotrain linked to above are no longer located at that page; they are now at Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (for use in Scotland). Doops | talk 03:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I hope you'll come contribute. I'm not sure who started the edit war — but in my view the position of Mais oui! is the correct one. His/her rhetoric isn't always measured; but this time he/she is right. Doops | talk 03:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

two articles for your notice

Hi. Since they're on subjects I thought you might be interested in, I'm flattering my vanity by drawing to your attention two articles I created today: Coat of Arms of the Principality of Wales and List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs. If you have anything to add to either it would certainly be welcome. Thanks. Doops | talk 00:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Maltese nobility.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Gauci If you have time, perhaps you may have comments on this. I have no knowledge of the subject matter, but it seems that most people are voting have a simliar amount, or are partisan. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 17:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Invitation

Would you like to join: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Cite sources

I just used you as an example of a user who uses inote to avoid clutter in Wikipedia talk:Cite sources. Hope you don't mind. Mozzerati 07:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice Work

Hey, great work! I was doing an essay about European history for school and your articles have been a great help. Thank you!

"Featured articles which I have written?"

What does this mean? Sfahey 04:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)