Okay, Edessa and Antioch are done...thanks for your corrections there. Now you need to do Tripoli :) Adam Bishop 02:59 2 Jul 2003
About Raynald/Reynald...I made a note on Raynald of Chatillon that he's also called Reynald or Reginald (and that Chatillon is also Châtillon or Chastillon). There already was an article under Raynald, so I just left it and changed the links. I've usually seen it in texts as Reynald or Reginald too, but I don't think there really is a proper spelling, just because of the way French was evolving at the time. I've also noticed that there are links to Dagobert of Pisa, the first Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem (though he has no article yet), while I've also seen him called Daimbert. You can move it you want though, I have no preference either way, I guess :) Adam Bishop 16:36 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hi John -- look again at what I wrote to the Irishman. Really -- I have a system for this and know what I'm doing. I want to do this really systematically so that all the links get caught when I do the page moves. Trust me on this, and ask the Irishman -- we've talked and I think you'll find I've convinced him. Meanwhile, which names do you think we should change from English? I think all but Henriques?? Boots
Hi. I pulled Clement Attlee's cabinet of of somewhere yesterdahy with the intention of addinng it to his page (I've stuck the info on the Talk:Clement Attlee page for the moment), but, I'm not sure whether to follow the format you've used for the 19th century PMs, as there are a lot more cabinet reshuffles in these latter days. what do you think? Mintguy 09:43 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Re: Anastasia (1997 movie): Excellent! My fiendish plan is succeeding ad-mir-a-bly..... (rubbing hands together in arch-villain-dead-Rasputin-esque glee)... -- Someone else 23:30, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
As you're probably aware, in recent weeks I've become interested disambiguating the peerages of Britain (despite being virtually ignorant of the subject before). Initially I started doing simple disambiguation as per Duke of Westminster, but latterly I've been creating narratives of the family history and connected titles, as per Duke of Somerset, and Duke of Hamilton. I don't want to go overboard doing this kind of thing if people feel it's not required. I've been in coversation with user:Someone else about this and he prefers a different format, as per Earl of Castlehaven and Talk:Earl of Castlehaven. I'm just polling opinions on the subject. I'm also wondering if it's worth creating a wikiproject on the British peerage. Mintguy
I think as far as Wikipedia articles are concerned, the question of what gets lumped together and what gets separated out is a matter of for each individual article as and when new ones are created, I don't think there needs to be a hard and fast rule. There is a lot more flexibility in a Wikipedia article than in the printed page, because we can split things up and join them together without too much trouble and of course we also have these wonderful wikilinks to jump to and fro between things. It just so happened that when I was researching the Duke of Hamilton, I discovered that the first 2 were also Earls of Arran. It made sense to me to go back and fill in the earlier Earls or Arran, but I recognised that there was a later creation and they were going to need their own page at some point, so I put a link in at the top. I'm not overly fussed as to whether this section discussing the Earls of Arran gets moved to the Earls of Arran page when it gets created, as long as the family history narrative makes sense and it's clear that this particular creation is the same family. For the Duke of Westminster, the current duke still holds the baronetcy so it made sense to me to include the earlier baronets. I've put the Earls of Selkirk on the same page as the Duke of Hamilton, because it had devolved back to the incumbent Duke and his brother several times. The Duke of Westminster page was one of the first pages I disambiguated and it doesn't have much of a narrative, but I thought it important to demonstrate that the family weren't elevated to the peerage from complete obscurity. What's the objection here?
My main point though is not so much about what gets lumped together and split apart (which can easily be moved around), but more the format of the page in general. User:Someone else favours putting son of; grandson off; distant cousin etc... next to the person in question in the disambiguation list (or list of succession). I know this is how it's listed in Burke's etc.., but they are trying to stuff as much information as possible into as small a space as they can. We have the luxury of almost unlimited space. I think the list becomes untidy when you put all of that information next to it. If this information is presented as more of a narrative we can elaborate (on the peerage page) on why a particular distant cousin ended up with a particular title whilst the deceased peer's daughter's children ended up with others. 'Someone else' favours putting this information in the biographical articles themselves. I think this is worthy, but don't think that this should mean it is excluded from, or abridged in, the main article. Finally, I've put a block at the top of the page listing titles that have been associated with a particular peerage (which can have links of course in order to elaborate on them). I think that if user clicks on Earl St. Maur for example and ends up on Duke of Somerset they can at least see that this is mentioned near the top. Of course in this particular example Earl St. Maur might warrant it's own page listing the 12th Duke and his son as well. Mintguy 08:14, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hi. I've kicked of a Wikiproject page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage, so discussion can be lumped together in one place :). Mintguy 10:17, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Wow, I just wrote up Northcote myself. Talk about timing. Looks like we did the same thing, so I'll clear my entry and just apply the uploaded image to yours. Mackensen 4:36, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Muahaha! That means there's exactly ONE person who won't be mystified by my comment<G> -- Someone else 05:07, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Dear John, Llwyrch just told me that you are also interested in Roman issues. I would apreciate your opinion on my Ancient Rome Proposal Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 10:09, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hi, is there any reason you are doing dates like (1651—1716) and not like (1651-1716)? ie - using an em dash as opposed to an en dash. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) seems to suggest using the shorter one. Angela 04:54, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)
Look at the list on Chancellor of the Exchequer for 1606-1614 and then look at who put it in there :-) Mintguy 08:23, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hm....I thought Sir Julius Caesar 1610-1614 must be a joke or a mistake, but it appears that he actually existed[1][2]. So apologies for my earlier comment. Mintguy 09:33, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Regarding List of Presidents of Ecuador (I'm posting this here because it may also apply to other lists of incumbents you have done or will do): this list seems to be based on a list of full names with the metronyms removed, while keeping some completely obscure second given names (such as the "Alfonso" in "Sixto Alfonso Durán-Ballén"). I think we should either list the most complete form of the name (e.g. "Sixto Alfonso Durán-Ballén Cordovez") or the most common form ("Sixto Durán-Ballén"). The latter may be preferable as it is also the standard format for article titles. --Wik 22:52, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)
What do you want to change your username to? I can easily make it so that all the article histories and everything are updated to point to your new username (just the talk page signatures will stay the same). And I'm happy to make you a sysop as soon as that's complete.
May I suggest using your real name? -- Tim Starling 08:10, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)
I'm just going to wait until the server is a bit less busy, say another 3.5 hours or so. When it's done, you'll be able to log in as "John Kenney", with the same password as before. The account "Jlk7e" will cease to exist, you might want to recreate it to prevent people from impersonating you. I'll leave it to you to move pages, set up redirects, make announcements, etc. -- Tim Starling 00:47, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
Done. This account has now been renamed to User:John Kenney. -- Tim Starling 04:46, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
You should already be a sysop. Haven't you noticed a few more links in your sidebar all of a sudden? Wondering why when you try to hit "discuss" it asks you if you want to delete the page? :) -- Tim Starling 06:49, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
John, re Adolf Hitler: I suppose it is fair enough to remove Goldhagen from the bibliography on the grounds that his book is not about Hitler, though it is relevant to the question of Hitler's sole or shared responsibility for the Holocaust. When you say, however, that it has been "canned by historians," I think qualification is required. As a writer, I think Goldhagen's book is tendentious, turgid, repetitive and extremely annoying. This has been the source of a lot of the adverse comment. As a historian, however, I think he proves his case beyond any doubt whatever, both as to the culture of eliminationist anti-Semitism from which Hitler emerged and as to the complicity of the German people (with a few exceptions which he notes) in Hitler's crimes. Most of the criticism I have seen of Goldhagen (apart from that coming from people like Irving) centres on the accusation that he believes the Germans to be innately or uniquely anti-Semitic, despite the fact that he says the opposite in the book. Regards Adam 03:11, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
John, thanks for that link, it clarifies some things for me, although I still think Goldhagen is broadly right. On your edits to Hitler, see my comments at Talk:Adolf Hitler. Adam 07:29, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I see that you haven't learned from the Ecuador thing. Your list of Bulgarian prime ministers has the same kind of mistakes. Why don't you use a normal list of names instead of trying to determine the essential parts from a list of full names? --Wik 08:22, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)
John you seem to be our rise-of-Hitler expert, could you go to Adolf Hitler an argue with Frank about this Sidney Warburg conspiracy theory? Everything I've looked at says there was no such person but I'm reluctant to get sucked into an argument where I don't really know the whole story. Adam 16:40, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I assume you were talking about my edits to the Gladstone page. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style British spelliings should be used on articles about British subjects, and American spellings used foe American subjects. G-Man 19:36, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
At VfD just a few minutes ago I suggesred List of all people as the solution to this problem, but I have had no support as yet. Adam 04:14, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding The Conservative Party (UK) etc. it was decided to include the definite article because The is officially part of the parties' names (unlike Liberal Democrats) see Talk:The Labour Party (UK). It is not unprecedented to use it, as per: The Football Association, The Daily Telegraph, The Hague, The Beatles, The Proms, The Americas, The Panthéon, The Gambia, The wheel, The Juilliard School. Mintguy 21:22, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Glups!! I didnt knew that! I always thout that Henri had inherited France through Marguerite! But what you said makes perfect sense, i'll correct it. Unfortunately i dont have the file with me now, so i'm removing the flawed Bourbon until i can substitute it. Thanks for the pointer: that's why i like wikipedia! Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 10:13, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hi John, about my statement about Caligula, you are right. He did have 3 sisters as a quick look at my translation of Suetonius shows. (His youngest sister was Julia Livilla, who survived Caligula's reign to be executed by Claudius.) However, it appears both of his other sisters managed to keep out of his reach & managed to avoid "playing" with him.
However, I stand by my call that the sentence was at best redundant. His alleged incest with Drusilla is well known; & also nicely stated in the article as it stood. And I'd like to send my thanks to the fellow who added the link to the Straight Dope article, which points out the weakness in the historical evidence about Caligula's madness: that there exists an image fo Caligula as perverted, demented, & possibly mentally ill, is clearly a fact; but whether or not he actually engaged in these vices beyond the average Roman Senator (for whom sexual license was an expression of power), is debateable. -- llywrch 22:21, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Why are you taking it upon yourself to edit my conversation with Szopen? Adam 02:51, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I refer to your last edit at User talk:Szopen Adam 11:07, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Re the mysterious edit: I guess someone else must have done it. There is in fact nothing to stop people making edits and using other people's names, is there? Adam Bishop Szopen llywrch Wik Boots john Adam 12:06, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed the confusion over the accidental revert. This happens to sysops occasionally due to the use of the rollback button. You wouldn't have had to type in an edit summary- that appears automatically and says something like "reverted to the last edit of whoever". It is quite possible to do it inadvertently as I found out when I once reverted Jonhays0's user page to a vandalised version by accident when I was actually trying to revert my own user page. [3]. Angela 23:57, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
You have made an edit to the Edward Grey page with the following summary: reverting - the word "British" in relation to "house of commons" has no need to be shown in the article.
I included the word "British" in the link since "House of Commons" links to a generic House of Commons page (Canada also having a House of Commons), while British House of Commons links to the specific House in which Edward Grey served. Failing any objection, I hope to include "British" in the link, though not necessarily in the actual text of the article. Lord Emsworth 02:21, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
Mr. Kenney, I offer these sites as the source of the list of peers:
Reading through the list of Protestant Religious Figures on Protestantism, I note that on your revision from May 29th added William Laud, with the caption Archbishop of Canterbury under Charles I of England, writer of the Book of Common Prayer. Right you are on the former statement. As for the latter, I'm curious what your source is. Laud and Charles I were instrumental in making the Prayer Book the only official form of worship within the Church of England, however, I was always of the school of thought that Thomas Cranmer is attributed with the authorship of the Prayer Book. Well, not to say that he alone wrote it as it stands today, but that his work brought about the earliest English communion services and prayer books, though, even these were heavily influenced by others. In short, I guess what I'm asking is if this statement ought to be removed, as attributing the Book of Common Prayer to Laud seems just plain erroneous.
Then again, I know little about Laud; I just noticed because of my knowledge of Cranmer. This is why I suppose I thought to ask before blindly editing away. :-) User:charleschuck
I nicked the list from [4]. It has some inaccuracies. I don't think it's complete. That web site has a search facility for titles. Mintguy 09:37, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi, you might want to look at the village pump. A user there is proposing replacing British and the adjective for the UK (and its previous states) by United Kingdom. FearÉIREANN 22:39, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Mr. Kenney, I beg to direct you to the Discussion Page on the United Kingdom Order of Precedence, where propositions relating to divisions shall be apparent. Lord Emsworth 19:19, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
Hello. It seems that you are an extremely valuable contributer to Wikipedia, but I have not made your acquaintence yet, so I will now say, "Nice to meet you!".
I am glad that you have entered the discussion at Silesia. I hope there now will be possible to find a solution there. Cheers, Nico
There was once jkl7e on soc.history.what-if, when i was posting there... Accidental similarity? szopen
Hi! I saw you note at szopen' talk page. When it's time to unprotect, I will ask a sysop to do so, but the page should stay protected until also cc has accepted the version - or he will just start a new edit war. Remember that we already have a consesus version (written by szopen and me), accepted by all other contributors, but not by cc (he didn't participate in the discussion). -- Nico 07:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. Although, in that case, if he so desired, cc could simply never respond and keep the page protected forever. I'm pretty sure he's edited the talk page since I originally put up the alternate version, which suggests he's seen it. So my question is, if he doesn't say anything, at what point can we say "screw 'im, let's get on with it"? john
I agree. If he don't respond now, the version must be considered accepted. Nico 16:29, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Sadly, it seems like cc now continues with his game. And this is his new "proposal": -- Nico 21:13, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Why did you move Franz Josef of Austria to Franz Joseph of Austria? The latter is a strange mix of German and English. Maximus Rex 07:59, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why are you so aggressive in introducing German names for Polish cities in English vikipedia?. What is the purpose of this Germanising policies. Bismarck and Hitler is not enough??? cc, 06:34, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi John, did you mean to protect Nico's user page? You might to say why on Wikipedia:Protected page if you did, or unprotect it if you didn't. Angela. 21:53, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
No problem. I just thought I'd check as quite often pages are protected by accident. Angela. 06:02, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi John, a new user has rewritten List of Roman Emperors -- only to harm that article, I fear. I reverted his changes. Please compare the differences & express your opinion in the Talk forum. -- llywrch 03:54, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi John. I'd welcome your comments on Mother Teresa. One user insists there is no problem with the article. Everyone else says it is POV in terms of content and picture use. We have managed to moderate its tone and NPOV it to some extent but one user sees any NPOVing as compromising the truth. As I am constantly been accused of bias in criticising that one user (though an outspoken critic of Catholicism I am accused by that one user of being a 'catholic apologist', I'd welcome independent observers to comment on whether
As a user whose views I have deep respect for, I would welcome your observations. I trust totally your neutrality, impartiality and judgment. FearÉIREANN 03:49, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
NP. For questioning the neutrality of the article, Ed Poor has just been branded as self-admitted MT admirer, and Daniel Quinlan has been screamed at to "read the fucking article". So far of all the users visiting the page and correcting the tone lately only Silsor has avoided been abused. So maybe keeping far from the MT war is wise. Thanks for replying in any case! FearÉIREANN 06:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi John, just wanted to tell you that Taw abused his sysop powers in order to make a substantial edit to one of the most disputed sentences of the Silesia article. Apparently he doesn't consider it necessary to answer my question concerning this on his talke page. Do you have a suggestion what to do here? -- Baldhur 14:07, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
--- cc: please stop adding your joke questions to the vote. I made some effort to try to address many of your objections to the current article. It would behoove you to make your comments, instead of continuing to engage in obnoxious edit wars with Nico. john 21:53, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC) I find you submissions the JOKE questions -- CC 22:00, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Wow! Cc has now deleted the whole vote from Talk:Silesia Nico 22:06, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Seems like he just moved it. Nico 22:09, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)