| Revision as of 05:52, 16 March 2006 editHydriotaphia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers4,222 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:42, 19 March 2006 edit undoNightscream (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,194 edits →Hugo BlackNext edit → | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
| ==Hugo Black== | ==Hugo Black== | ||
| Hello there. Since you seem to have been involved in editing ], I thought I'd tell you that I have posted some—I hope helpful!—comments about the article on the talk page. They respond to some of the objections that were made during the failed featured-article nomination. You can see my comments ]. Best wishes, ] 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC) | Hello there. Since you seem to have been involved in editing ], I thought I'd tell you that I have posted some—I hope helpful!—comments about the article on the talk page. They respond to some of the objections that were made during the failed featured-article nomination. You can see my comments ]. Best wishes, ] 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==]== | |||
| Could you weigh in at the bottom of the ] regarding the inclusion of an image of her? ], who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Please read the bottom two sections of that page. Thanks. ] 18:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:42, 19 March 2006
Please note that I might re-format any comments. See also: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7 and Archive 8.
You're 17!!?!?!!!!
Oh my god! I never use that many punctuation marks, but crimey! I was SOOOO convinced you were a 56-year-old Brit of low-level noble birth who worked at Burke's Peerage. Swear to god. I'm floored. You're a rock star. Wow. jengod 00:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- He's American, too... :) – ugen64 21:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Today's FA
I just thought I'd note that today's FA, Mary II of England, is one of yours and that (as usual) it is excellent. Raul654 20:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Also, I thought you might get a chuckle out of this -- Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations Raul654 01:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Important AfD
I am contacting editors applies NPOV and NOR standards rigidly for their input on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, where a consensus has yet to be established. I think this AfD is particularly important because it has been bringing to light some fundamental differences in interpretations of content policies among editors. If you have time, please take a look at the page and add your input. Best regards. 172 07:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Lord Lonsdale
My Lord, do you know if William Lowther, 2nd Earl of Lonsdale was called up to the House of Lords in 1841 by a writ of acceleration? Everything I've checked suggests that he never sat in the Commons again after 1841, yet he's certainly in Peel's government as Postmaster-General. His father didn't die until 1844. I mean, a writ would explain everything, I just don't have any evidence. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- He was summoned to Parliament on 8 September 1841 in his father's Barony of Lowther, of Whitehaven in the County of Cumberland (Peerage of Great Britain, created 26 October 1797). (So says the Complete Peerage, at any rate.) Hope that helps. Proteus (Talk) 22:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's it exactly, many thanks. Mackensen (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, a further question. Would he be known then as the Lord Lowther by virtue of the barony, for that three-year period, and not as Viscount Lowther? Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- No. The courtesy Viscountcy would take precedence over the substantive Barony (cf. Lord Salisbury, who was known as "Viscount Cranborne" even whilst sitting in the Lords in his father's Barony of Cecil). Proteus (Talk) 08:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Something for you to read
I think you might be amused by this Raul654 20:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
First Lord of the Admiralty
You redirected "First Lord of the Admiralty" to "Admiralty" with the edit summary "this list exists elsewhere".
- First - I question whether this is a good reason for redirection. The office itself merits an article, whether the incumbents are listed somewhere else or not. It was an important office.
- Second - where is this other place where the incumbents are listed? Why isn't this the place where the list should be maintained? How are later readers, like myself, going to go check to see whether the list remains in existence a year later? -- Geo Swan 03:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- See List of Lord High Admirals and First Lords of the Admiralty, which it mentioned on Admiralty. FWIW, in this case, I think it make sense to have one page which discusses all of the offices. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The Village Voice
Nice little mention the other day (17 January). Just thought I'd drop by and pass along a little gratitude to a fellow Lord for promoting Misplaced Pages. Thanks. --LV 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hugo Black edits
I appreciate your hard work on the Hugo Black article, and rather than engage in an edit war with you I want to make a couple of points. First, the ordering of Black's beliefs as relating to specific provisions of the Bill of Rights as the actually appear in the Bill of Rights is completely arbitrary. Black's civil rights record needs to be treated separately in the article. Frankly, the old structure, which treated the issues in a sort of chronological order (civil rights first, then incorporation, then free speech during the McCarthy era, his rejection of "right of privacy" in the 1960s, etc.) was superior because Black's emphasis, if not his actual views, changed over time and also because the new structure is utterly arbitrary. I disagree strongly with some sections where you attempt to describe Black's record as inconsistent, incidentally; I don't think that it is true that his lack of support for extending the Fourth Amendment or "right of privacy" renders his jurisprudence less absolute than he claimed. And I don't agree with many of your deletions of content; for example, Chambers v. Florida was the first indication that this ex-Klansman was not actually racially prejudiced on the bench. I am not going to keep playing revert games with you, however; I expect you to respond to my comment in some manner. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
interview request
Hi Lord Emsworth,
I'm a reporter for Gannett's Washington Bureau and I'm writing about Misplaced Pages. An Admin told me you are the top contributor "by far and away." Would you have time for a quick interview? Please send your contact information to ngaudiano@gns.gannett.com.
Thanks,
Nicole Gaudiano Gannett News Service
Use of "Lord"
Fantastic work that you do here!! Can you help me here please? Would Arthur Russell, second son of Lord George William Russell have been called Lord Arthur Russell? Why? Thanks in anticipation. Cutler 12:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
United States Bill of Rights
Hi, I'm soliciting Misplaced Pages:Peer review#United States Bill of Rights comments from people who contributed to the FA on the 1st Amendment, since there doesn't seem to be any response at PR. Many thanks, Kaisershatner 21:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello
It was good to see your name on some recent contributions, even if have been concentrating until recently on US legal subjects rather than (the much more important) British topics ;) Your contributions are all the more valuable these days, given how few and far between they seem to be. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Prince Rupert of the Rhine
Salve Lord Emsworth, you have once helped edit the article above. There is a discussion on the correct name of the article though, since you helped out maybe you care to drop by and take a look? With kind regards Gryffindor 17:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Head's up
Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/March 17, 2006 - (Intentionally aimed for St. Patrick's day) Raul654 00:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Baron Hesketh
Hello, I was mining "Random article" for something fun to work on today and I stumbled upon Baron Hesketh, an article you started. I noticed that there are a lot of links to un-created articles. In my opinion, it seemed too many, so I removed most of them. I also notice that solitary years were linked, so I removed those as well, in accordance to the MoS at WP:DATE (the linking of years should either be for a strong connection to that year in question, or as part of a full date, where the wikilink is mainly about allowing the user's preferred style of date display to be used.) Just thought I'd leave you a note in case you disagree with me and would like to discuss these edits I've made. Best, Johntex\ 23:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hugo Black
Hello there. Since you seem to have been involved in editing Hugo Black, I thought I'd tell you that I have posted some—I hope helpful!—comments about the article on the talk page. They respond to some of the objections that were made during the failed featured-article nomination. You can see my comments here. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Katelyn Faber
Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Please read the bottom two sections of that page. Thanks. Nightscream 18:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)