Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:21, 30 October 2007

Did You Know?

On 13 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir Ian Fife Campbell Anstruther, 8th Baronet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Disillusioned

As you know I have done a great deal of work on Misplaced Pages. I've lost count of the number of hours input I have made, researching information, writing and making serious contributions to a great many articles. But sitting back, I am disheartened by the way personal opinions and so-called 'consensus' (by the 'community' - who are always people other than ourselves) are permitted to override convention and the work of contributors and sometimes destroy it. The argument on how Baronets should be listed is a good example of a nonsense when a correct form is set down by the Crown as their right. We have the obvious anti-British and anti-aristocracy brigade such as User:Vintagekits who use any excuse they can locate to attack such pages, and I am now engaged in another argument with an obvious all but self-proclaimed expert on Scottish medieval history who denounces just about every Victorian historian as frauds and fantasists. So if I give any number of citations from scholars with any number of degrees and academic qualifications after their names but who researched and wrote their books in the 19th or early 20th century they are all instantly denounced as crétins. I just despair and I am thinking its time for a break. I just wanted to explain it to you and to thank you for your support at various times. David Lauder 19:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I know how you feel, sometimes I wonder whether a break would be just what I need too! I think we just need to persevere, although one finds it hard when User:Vintagekits is somehow treated like a much-needed editor and constantly afforded special treatment! --Counter-revolutionary 19:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

May I add my tuppenceworth here?

I'm not much familiar with C-R's work, but I am familiar with David's. David has access to very authoritative sources on the articles he edits, and is very conscientious about accuracy: he cross-checks, cites sources, and weighs the evidence. I always have a lot of confidence that I look at David's work, it is of a high standard, and in fact I'd say that David is one of the most precise and conscientious editors I encounter.

Unfortunately, though, I don't think that David has yet found a sufficiently effective way of dealing with those who don't hold to those standards, or who approach a subject from a very different perspective. I'm not saying that (for example) Vk's efforts to disrupt or remove content on subjects he disapproves of is justifiable, but that part of the reason he gets drawn into that sort of thing is because David allows himself to get sucked into one side of a polarised debate over avoidable disputes over issues like the terminology to be used in articles on the conflict in Northern Ireland, where a Reuters-style approach of rigorously neutral terminology is the only possible way of approaching a stable version which doesn't offend either of the opposite perspectives.

On nobility too, I think it's unfortunate that David is inclined to anchor his position within the perspective of those who support and maintain the structures of nobility, which again leads to disputes with those who despise nobility. The proposal WP:NOBLE failed, and however much some editors regret that, we need to move on within the balance of views as it currently exists on wikipedia. I think that if David could accept, however, regretfully that we don't for now have consensus for taking the notability of nobles as far as he'd like it, that it would be a lot easier to fend off the partisan deletionists who fail to understand that however much they dislike nobility, a significant number of these people did have a significant and notable role. I have noticed many times that no consensus is achievable on many issues in this field because too many editors are unwilling to meet in the middle. It seems to me that a lot of energy which could be directed into improving coverage of the most notable nobles is being dissipated in disputes over the inclusion of rather minor figures, which is both a loss to wikipedia and a source of deep frustration to the editors creating the contested content

Anyay, that's just my tuppenceworth. I mean it in as helpful a way as possible, so if it doesn't come across as helpful, please ignore it and accept my apologies. I've only butted in here because I have recently encountered several talented editors of different persuasions who ave given up on wikipedia or are tempted to do so, and I am trying to encourage people to remember that even though they might not achieve all they want, the knowledgeable editors who create wikipedia's most useful content can do some things to minimise their stress levels. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:11:14, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I echo what everybody is saying here. I am beginning to think maybe, just maybe, wikipedia works - but it is incredibly slow at grinding into action. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It'd take a lot before I thought wikipedia 'worked'. This is only a start. Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I believe User:Stramash may be a sockpuppet. Could someone please assist me with what course to follow. --Counter-revolutionary 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

See: User_talk:John/Archive_15#Spot_the_difference. Be prepared to apologise if you are wrong!--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who he is a sockpuppet of but Stramash is certainly not a new user. --Counter-revolutionary 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with an experienced Wikipedian choosing a new account to edit with, as long as they are not using it to abuse policy (like to evade a block or ban, or vote stack). If you are concerned you can ask the editor if he or she has edited previously and whether they are willing to tell you their previous account (or ask them to tell an admin privately). It is within their rights to decline, of course. However, unless you have good reason to believe you know who the puppeteer is, and that they are using the new account in an abusive manner, there is little you can do but watch and wait. Rockpocket 18:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your message on my talk page. Stramash 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I should also like to add User:Ginggangsgoolies to my suspicions.--Counter-revolutionary 14:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Londonderry

link on my pageTraditional unionist 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:2WWamerybook.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2WWamerybook.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Tynan today

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tynan today.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Presumably, a replacable image can be obtained of this by someone going there and photographing it. Tyrenius 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Ty's mistake. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nick and Gatsby

When they first meet at Gatsby's party, Gatsby establishes that they were in the same general area at the same time during WWI. Gatsby says something along the lines of "I thought your face looked familiar." I haven't checked the wording in the article, I just read your edit summary, and since I'm at work I don't have the book sitting next to me on my desk (like I do at home), but the article could probably be clearer on the point. But Gatsby at least establishes some sort of a connection with Nick, which is kind of important as he wants Nick to trust him, immediately. There's been a theory proposed that Gatsby knows exactly who Nick is, that Gatsby was instrumental in securing Nick living next door to him -- if you recall, Nick says that his house was "a steal at $80 a month" -- and that Gatsby wanted him living next to him because of his connection to Daisy. I've never seen that in print anywhere, it may have been an invention of my high school English teacher, so it's not in the article. But he definitely establishes the WWI connection. I'm probably going to remove the {{fact}} tag without actually citing it, as it seems silly to have one reference in the middle of the plot summary. —  MusicMaker5376 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine Gatsby knows exactly who Nick is in order to set up a meeting with Daisy, knowing full well N is Daisy's cousin - that's just my conjecture taking account of the situation. I really have no recollection of the familiarity from the war comments, and I know the book reasonably well. I shall, however, take a look report back. Thankfully it can be resolved fairly easily! --Counter-revolutionary 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant to check the book last night and forgot. But, if you recall, the revelation that Gatsby knows Daisy went through Jordan to Nick. I think, maybe, the idea that G knows who N is beforehand sort of falls apart in that light. But then Nick asks Jordan "Why didn't he just ask me himself?" and she says something along the lines that he had waited this long and he didn't want to impose. Maybe he did know who Nick was. Oh, well. Unfortunately, emailing the author is a little difficult....

Anyway, I will check the book tonight. I'm thinking it's in Chapter 2. Or 3. Fitz transposed the two in the galleys and I always get them confused.... —  MusicMaker5376 19:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't checked either and have flicked through too many books of late! I really have no recollection of them mentioning knowing each other before, in the army. Anyway, let me know how it comes along. --Counter-revolutionary 20:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like someone cited it. I'll look it up, anyway, to clean up the writing. —  MusicMaker5376 22:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Your face is familiar," said politely. "Weren't you in the Third Division during the war?"

"Why, yes. I was in the Ninth Machine-Gun Battalion."

"I was in the Seventh Infantry until June nineteen-eighteen. I knew I'd seen you somewhere before."

I'm going to fix the writing. —  MusicMaker5376 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How odd, I really have no memory of that! Thanks for getting it sorted. --Counter-revolutionary 17:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates hint

No reason I'm choosing you in particular to tell you this, but regarding this move last month, remember: when you move a page, be sure to modify the templates on that page accordingly, else the subject's name won't turn black (as it didn't on that page for a whole month). I'm not angry, but I have seen this countless times and I thought I'd share this little insight with someone. Thank you for reading. Biruitorul 06:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I see you did the same with Brian Faulkner. Naughty... Biruitorul 06:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Righto, I'm afraid I've no idea what you mean by templates though! --Counter-revolutionary 09:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's take Brian Faulkner as an example. Go to the very bottom of the page. See the two boxes labelled "Leaders of The Ulster Unionist Party" and "Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland, 1922-1972"? Those are templates. For them to work properly, they need to link exactly to the article in which they're placed, ie no redirects. That's why page moves should be accompanied by appropriate template modification. Biruitorul 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you fix tables?

Belfast Victoria (Northern Ireland Parliament constituency) I'm a bit crap at itTraditional unionist 09:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go and, apparently, the answer's no!--Counter-revolutionary 09:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lord Nicholas Hervey

Would you care to comment on the issues of substance currently under debate in the Talk:Lord Nicholas Hervey page? You will need to read all of the section, now unfortunately rather lengthy, as I have had to try hard to understand the other person's points and disentangle the prose. Your constructive criticism would be appreciated. BrainyBabe 18:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

NI Infobox idea

I'd like to invite you to comment on my thoughts behind a specific set of NI infoboxes. I'm just mulling the idea over on my talk page. Thanks. --Blowdart 13:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

moving the warning -- preview

Sorry, I should have posted this here on 23 Sept, not on Lord Nicholas Hervey, re your (welcome) photo additions. Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. BrainyBabe 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Righto, yes, I've started using the preview button. --Counter-revolutionary 21:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Will you still consider posting a different picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.74.155 (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sir Patrick.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sir Patrick.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your new User page

Ha, ha! What about 'Ophelia' though? And the poem? I hope they're coming back when the hurly-burly's done, when the battle's lost and won? My experience of Misplaced Pages: 'inadequates arguing about inconsequentialities'. And it goes without saying that I was very disappointed at my own review; a bit more imagination would have spiced it up considerably. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take The Superhero Quiz to determine your exact super-identity. (Unfortunately, the results come out as American - we need someone to anglicise it - Judge Dredd, Dennis the Menace (and Walter the Softy), the Bash Street Kids, Lord Peter Flint, Sid the Sexist, Grandma, and, of course, Basil Brush would be more in keeping with anglo-saxon sensibilities I feel.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I came out as Spider-man first (75%) (rather generic) and some chap called Green Lantern (70%). We'd need Rumpole of the Bailey in there too, of course! --Counter-revolutionary 13:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I am Spiderman (I took the quiz yesterday)! Green Lantern is pretty non-specific (there seem to have been about 3 different versions, from my skim-read), but the nearest British equivalent is (hmmm...) Robot Archie? Now at least you have a proper citation to refute the claim of being either Batman or Robin!--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, haha! I must add that! --Counter-revolutionary 15:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I never thought of Wiki as somewhere to have a laugh but the discussion here is a hoot; as are the comments on your new User Page. Bit of a p***-take but most deserving. Regards, David Lauder 19:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Batman and Robin image

Hey, just a heads up.. per the previous time that a copyrighted image was placed on your user page, I have removed it.. it's not allowed on user pages.. SirFozzie 18:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right, thanks. I never was much of an IP man! --Counter-revolutionary 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're on the lookout for novel and exciting pictures, might I suggest a visit to the circumcision page...?--Major Bonkers (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh...right. --Counter-revolutionary 23:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking instead of Batman and Robin, Roundhead and Cavalier ('the foreskinned crusader').

(This thought is dedicated to the employees of HM Customs and Revenue, in whose generous company I whiled away a pleasant four hours at Dover docks yesterday afternoon).--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm clearly lost...which won't help Giano's feckless image of me! ha! What brought you to the north of France in October? --Counter-revolutionary 10:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Milne Barbour, bt.

What is your source for the Deputy prime minister, as far as I can tell he wasn't and I don't think the position existed at all. he was a member of the NI privy council 1925.--Padraig 20:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know! I'm sure I read it somewhere, and I'm quite positive the position existed at a time, even if he didn't hold it... --Counter-revolutionary 20:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It didn't the role of Prime Minister of Northern Ireland didn't exist either under the Government of Ireland Act, and was an assumed title for the head of the Executive Committee.==Padraig 20:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, I believe I read Dep. PM was later combined with Minister in the Senate? I may be hugely wrong...! --Counter-revolutionary 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

These are the positions he held

• He was High Sheriff of County Armagh in 1905 and of County Down in 1907.
• President of Belfast Harbour Commissioners 1914 - 1950.
• President of the Northern Ireland Scout Council.
• President of the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast.
• President of the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society 1925-1930 and from 1931 until his death in 1951
• Member of the Senate of Queens University, Belfast.
• Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, Ministry of Finance 7th June 1921 - 22nd April 1937.
• Minster of Commerce 16th April 1925 - 16th January 1941.
• Privy Council of Northern Ireland 1925.
• Minister of Finance 16th January 1941 - 6th May 1943.
• Member of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland. --Padraig 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You will find very few references to Deputy Prime Minister outside of press articles around the time. The title was made up by the Prime Minister of the day, usually to buy political cover availaible from the holder. Jack Andrews was Dep PM under JDCC, mainly as he had been up for the top job twice and either didn't get it or turned it down. I think Faulkner was given it under TMO'N, mainly to buy him off for a while. Minister for Finance was usually much more important though.Traditional unionist 12:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was fairly sure it existed! --Counter-revolutionary 12:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Brookes

That is taken direct from the book, and the book reference was given by me in the article, the book itself references the quote to House of Commons debates, Vol. 134, Col 925-7, 8 Nov. 190.--Padraig 23:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no such volume of the NIHOC Hansard as 134. Vol 34 column 925 is May 1950 and the speaker is not Brooke.Traditional unionist 11:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Right I looked at the notes on the wrong chapter by mistake, it was taken from 'Farrell (1976), 90' which is 'Northern Ireland: the Orange state, London 1976'.--Padraig 11:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is not a particularly reliable reference. Brooke did make this statement, but a better source would be good, for example Patterson. The article also needs to be expanded - including this quote without a proper exploration of what the man was really like in Government (the various education acts, for which he was ordered to explain himself to Grand Lodge, for example) leaves it totally one sided and historically inaccurate portrayal of the man. As I say, Henry Patterson's book is excellent on these matters.Traditional unionist 12:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on an expansion. This should be a very comprehensive article. --Counter-revolutionary 12:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at what I emailed you a few weeks ago, there are a few bits and pieces about the end of his career in there, but what I reference is all pretty good for that period, particularly O'Neill's memoirs (although there are some inaccuracies in there) and Patterson's book. Even Faulkner's memoirs are of some use.Traditional unionist 12:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies,the quote made it look like he directly said it, I understand now this was commentary on his quote.--Counter-revolutionary 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There's actually two different quotes in a similar vein that seem to get lumped together, I'm hunting down sources and I'll post on the talk page with my discoveries, and we can go forward from there. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I found another source for it in 'Divided Ulster by Liam de Paor 1977 edition p105/6 ISBN 0-1402-1369-4 which has it dated to 13th July 1933:

There are a great number of Protestants and Orangemen who employ Roman Catholics. I feel I can speak freely on this subject as I have not a Roman Catholic about my own place.... I would appeal to Loyalists, therefore, whenever possible to employ good Protestant Lads and Lassies

Refering back to this statement in March 1934, he said:

Thinking out the whole question carefully...I recommend those people who are Loyalists not to employ Roman Catholics, ninety-nine per cent of whom are disloyal...I want you to remember one point in regard to the employment of people who are disloyal. There are often difficulties in the way, but usually there are plenty of good men and women available and the employers don't bother to employ them. You are disfranchising yourselfs in that way. You people who are employers have the ball at your feet. If you don't act properly now, before we know where we are we shall find ourselves in the minority instead of the majority.

The first quote was cited as the Fermanagh Times, 13th July 1933, and the second one to the Londonderry Sentinel, 20th March 1934.--Padraig 12:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:Unionism

I think it needs 10 signatories.Traditional unionist 15:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You only need 7-10 signatories for this.--Padraig 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglicization of European royal names

My personal view on the matter is that all names ought to be anglicized as royalty is a continent-wide social class that frequently transcends or transcended cultural and ethnic borders, especially where one family ruled over a number of territories (for instance, the Archhouse of Austria ruling over Hungary, Bohemia, Austria, etc). To me, we are going to have kings Frederick and Philip of Denmark and Spain, respectively, and not Frederik and Felipe. My Wikiview on the matter though is that anglicizations should be used in all cases except where there is overwhelming and consistent usage of an ethnic variant. It seems to me though that Germanic names at least should always be anglicized because the English language seems to lean in that direction, whereas it has always been "kinder" to names from the romance languages (although I am of the thought that we will have William VI of Luxembourg and not Guillaume). Shame to think though that the English language is attacked by all sorts of ethnophiles. I essentially have the same thoughts about monstrous, mixed-language constructions such as "Brunswick-Lüneburg" and "Hesse-Kassel". Charles 21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This may be of interest to you.Traditional unionist 15:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Common crap

You may not have noticed that all over Misplaced Pages BC and AD are being replaced with the athiestic and communist term Common era. What is you view on this disgraceful bias?David Lauder 08:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite agree. Absolute crap. It's quite ridiculous to use terms which are meaningless to appease scum. Is this now a general policy? Next they'll abolish £ signs I suppose! --Counter-revolutionary 09:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)