| Revision as of 14:28, 6 January 2006 editHenry Flower (talk | contribs)Administrators16,445 edits →Page moves: He isn't editing according to the MoS, he's completely ignoring it. My tastes have nothing to do with it.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:31, 6 January 2006 edit undoProteus (talk | contribs)Administrators16,161 edits →Page movesNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| :::::He isn't editing according to the MoS, he's completely ignoring it. My tastes have nothing to do with it. ]] 14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | :::::He isn't editing according to the MoS, he's completely ignoring it. My tastes have nothing to do with it. ]] 14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::As I've already pointed out to you, the MoS doesn't say what you seem to think it says. None of the people from whose articles you've removed peerage titles are "exclusively referred to by personal name". In fact, to take one example, Lord Bramall is overwhelmingly referred to as such (Google gives 881 for "Edwin Bramall" versus 13,600 for "Lord Bramall"). The exception is designed for people like ] and ], where the personal name is ''overwhelmingly'' more common. It is not simply a question of which is more usual (and even if it were you're being so slapdash and haphazard that you aren't even applying ''that'' totally invented rule properly). ] ] 17:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The arrogance of Misplaced Pages administrators is once again shown in the above comment by ]. Would he like to explain why one should not add the peerage title of someone to that page? Surely they have a right to have their peerage mentioned? Perhaps he should explain himself a bit better? | :The arrogance of Misplaced Pages administrators is once again shown in the above comment by ]. Would he like to explain why one should not add the peerage title of someone to that page? Surely they have a right to have their peerage mentioned? Perhaps he should explain himself a bit better? | ||
Revision as of 17:31, 6 January 2006
Welcome!
Hi Surrey10! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! JFW | T@lk 18:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Mark Thatcher
Your move of this page is against wikipedia policiy on article naming conventions. Furthermore, your further editing of the original Mark Thatcher page has meant that a move back (without cut an paste) is now impossible! The page will have to be deleted and re-instated by an administrator. Please do not do this again. Jooler 23:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Fear not, it is now sorted. Rich Farmbrough 00:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Well then Misplaced Pages should not have allowed the change, we are not all mind readers are we!! And please do not tell me what to do ("Please do not do this again"), you make yourself sound very rude and arrogant. --Surrey10 22:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Barony of Silkin
Perhaps if you used a more relevant source, like Burke's Peerage, you'd realise you're talking a load of rubbish. Proteus (Talk) 11:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Page moves
Please stop moving pages like this. If you continue, you are likely to be blocked from editing. Mark 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Don't be absurd. No one can be blocked just because their interpretation of the naming conventions is different to yours, and you'd do well not to go around threatening to block people just because you don't like their edits. (Your interpretation is wrong, by the way: someone's "usual name" has nothing to do with it, and the peerage title is used in the article title unless never used in real life, as the naming conventions you quote below make rather obvious.) Proteus (Talk) 10:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, you are completely wrong. See the recent case of Bobblewik, blocked for editing according to the MoS but against consensus. Mark 11:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you can't see the difference between being blocked for disruption by making masses of bot-like edits against consensus and being blocked for editing in accordance with the MoS against the personal tastes of an Admin, then you really don't have the capacity to be in a position of authority. Proteus (Talk) 11:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- He isn't editing according to the MoS, he's completely ignoring it. My tastes have nothing to do with it. Mark 14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- As I've already pointed out to you, the MoS doesn't say what you seem to think it says. None of the people from whose articles you've removed peerage titles are "exclusively referred to by personal name". In fact, to take one example, Lord Bramall is overwhelmingly referred to as such (Google gives 881 for "Edwin Bramall" versus 13,600 for "Lord Bramall"). The exception is designed for people like P. D. James and Ruth Rendell, where the personal name is overwhelmingly more common. It is not simply a question of which is more usual (and even if it were you're being so slapdash and haphazard that you aren't even applying that totally invented rule properly). Proteus (Talk) 17:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- The arrogance of Misplaced Pages administrators is once again shown in the above comment by Mark. Would he like to explain why one should not add the peerage title of someone to that page? Surely they have a right to have their peerage mentioned? Perhaps he should explain himself a bit better?
- People like Mark with their arrogant and rude attitudes only make more stop putting useful additions on Misplaced Pages and vandalise it instead. --Surrey10 10:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other_non-royal_names: Life peers (ie, people who have peerages awarded exclusively for their lifetime but who neither inherit it nor pass it on to anyone else)¹ use the same standard as for hereditary peers: use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name. For example: Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone (not "Quintin McGarel Hogg"), but Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher)." Mark 10:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)