User talk:Proteus/Archive 2

Expanding Boyfriend

You wrote to expand boyfriend, but can you try it yourself?? Please try to do whatever you can. 66.245.64.202 21:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales

I think that the format proposed would be acceptable. -- Emsworth 21:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Extinct Baronies

I notice you reverted all the baronies I added to the various lists, and I apologise for listing them: I wasn't aware those lists were not for extinct titles. The difficulty this represents is that all those articles were (and now still remain) orphans. As you appear to know more about this subject than I, could you find some way of de-orphaning them? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually the reason I added those articles to those lists in the first place is because the lists are linked from those articles directly. Take Baron Archer for example: The title of Baron Archer was created in the Peerage of Great Britain in 1747. They're written to the same style as all the others on those lists, so if you don't want them appearing on those lists then the articles need changing too. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Letters patent etc

Hello, I noticed you seem to know a lot about letters patent for Royal titles etc, especially from Lady Louise Windsor's talk page. I wonder if you know the situation for the Prince_Ernst_August_III_of_Hanover page. It says he has HRH as great grandson of George III. This is despite the fact he is a great great grandson, and by my knowledge would not have any British royal title, even under 1714 practice. Have you any thoughts? Astrotrain 10:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Theoretically...

Re your last revert for Extraterrestrial life: Both theorizing [1] and theorising [2] are valid spellings, although the latter is chiefly British usage. The 'z' version is the more common usage. Googlings on the different spellings of the various derivative forms (-ize, -izing, -ized, -ization) show about a 1:4 ratio of S vs. Z. Regards, KeithTyler 17:26, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Proteus: Request to unprotect pages

Proteus, I believe I have shown below that your protection of these pages:

was not in compliance with Protection policy. Would you please remove the protection from these pages.

P.S: I am restoring our discussion (which you have repeatedly deleted) to substantiate this request. HistoryBuffEr 17:46, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

No. (I'll let the discussion stay, because I know you'll just revert me if I remove it, and I have no intention of protecting my talk page, but don't see that as any indication that I'm willing to be annoyed into submission.) Proteus (Talk) 18:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proteus: Deleting discussions

Proteus, you have deleted a discusion critical of your action. This is a violation of WP guidelines.

"Please avoid deleting discussion merely because it is critical of your actions - doing so will only make people repeat the same criticism, and will make you seem like you are ignoring criticism."

It is understandable that you are embarrased by criticism. However, your deletion comment "Remove nonsense" is disingenuous and indicative of your inability to face reality. My commnents (restored below) were far from nonsense as they were substantiated by facts.

You are free to ignore or archive comments you dislike, but outright deletion of serious comments is deceptive and counterproductive. (You may also wish to take note of the fact that I have received far more negative comments and every single one of them is available in full on my Talk subpage.) HistoryBuffEr 16:34, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

I didn't "delete discussion merely because it is critical of my actions". I deleted it because it's pointless. I have no intention of unprotecting pages simply because a troll pesters me. If you want protection removed you'd better ask someone else (who'll doubtless agree with me that you're simply a troll). Proteus (Talk) 18:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proteus: Your strange Reverts and Protects on Palestine articles

Proteus: You have reverted and protected Struggle over Palestine with this explanation "(revert to version favoured by those not breaking 3 revert rule (this redirect is now protected))".

However, you actually reverted to the version favored by those who reverted 11 times. "Jayjg" reverted the article 6 times, "IZAK" reverted the article 4 times, and "Gadykozma" reverted the article 1 time. All these 11 reverts were to the version you reverted to, as shown the article history:

05:28, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Where did original Talk go?)
05:25, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg)
05:21, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (oops, wrong redir)
05:19, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M
05:17, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (redir)
05:05, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK M
05:05, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK (Buffer's antics are deplorable)
05:01, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Redirect back to where it was)
04:57, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK
04:56, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK
04:49, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (Expand on partition, reword History)
04:44, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (redirect to article with actual content)
04:33, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Add Resolution link)
04:15, 2004 Oct 25 Gadykozma (Revert to last version by Jayjg.)
04:12, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Add link to history)
03:57, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (Revert vandalism)
03:47, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Restore)
03:35, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M
03:28, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (History, pass 2)
03:23, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (Revert vandalism)

Also, I did not break the revert rule. I was editing the article in between and trying to restore the original Talk (which was moved by the redirects).

Curiously, you have also redirected and protected the related article Occupations of Palestine, with similar history.

Could you explain your strange description and your apparently biased actions? HistoryBuffEr 19:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Copied over from HistoryBuffEr Talk for context)

I count 9 reverts or partial reverts by you in the past 24 hours (I'm not going to ignore a revert if you add some extra words to it), and only 6 by the most active of the people reverting you. The 3 revert rule applies to users, not to groups of users. As to the accusation of bias, I have never before (to my knowledge) interacted with any of the users editing that article, nor have I edited it (or, as far as I can recall, any related article), so my opinion on the situation is based solely on reviewing the page history. Proteus (Talk) 19:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting.

Another user reverts 6 times, and another user reverts 4 times, and you talk only about my actions.
Then you go into nitpicking over whether my edits are technically reverts or not, but fail to apply the same treatment to users with more numerous reverts.
And you talk about your lack of interaction with users when the question was your bias on article subject.

Do you want to answer the questions actually asked or not?

HistoryBuffEr 20:06, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

(Copied over from HistoryBuffEr Talk for context)

No, to be honest I'd rather not have a largely pointless discussion with you. "Additionally, when protection is due to a revert war, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the version favoured by those more closely complying with the guideline on repeated reverts." You reverted more than anyone else, so I reverted to their version, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. Proteus (Talk) 20:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are not being honest at all. I made only 2 real reverts (twice I was trying to restore Talk), but you chose the version favored by the worst violator -- Jayjg -- who had made 6 reverts.

It turned out that you also protected Occupation of Palestine, and without any notice (which caused some confusion about who did it.)

In summary, you have reverted 3 articles, all of them to one, pro-Israeli POV. Your lame excuses contrary to facts suggest that you did all this to promote your own POV. HistoryBuffEr 01:45, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

(Copied over from HistoryBuffEr Talk for context)

Oh, do give over. I only reverted one article - the others I just protected. (And there's no notices on two of them because they are redirect pages.) As to confusion as to who protected them, it's hardly my fault you aren't familiar with Wikipedia:Protecion log or Wikipedia:Protected page, both of which would tell you quite plainly who protected them. I have no desire to continue this absurd conversation, and as I've said I consider the matter at an end, so don't expect me to reply any further to your absurdities. Proteus (Talk) 08:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you have no explanation for your highly biased actions. HistoryBuffEr 16:34, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

I can't imagine how you read that into what I've said. I don't have any intention to explain further, though. Proteus (Talk) 18:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr's RFC about you

You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Proteus. I wouldn't worry to much about it, though. Jayjg 21:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Missing explosives in Iraq

Re your mailing list message, there appears to be a past version of the article written by you here. I don't know if it's the last version you wrote, but at least it might be something. Proteus (Talk) 16:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Proteus. I won't forget this. :-) --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Also Sir Francis Bacon" ?

I noticed you removed "also Sir Francis Bacon" from Francis Bacon with the edit summary of "not usual practice to include knightly title as "also known as", since it's so similar to the name already given". Two points:

Many people will have only ever heard of him referred to as "Sir Francis Bacon" and may well wonder if this is the same person.
I don't know whether it is "usual practice" or not but Britannica has: "Francis Bacon, Viscount Saint Alban born Jan. 22, 1561, York House, London, Eng.

died April 9, 1626, London, also called (160318) Sir Francis Bacon " as it's lead sentence.

So I have to ask, what harm does it do to include this ;-) Paul August 19:43, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'm rather certain that if one is not known by his/her peerage title, his/her commonly used style is often used. Most people wouldn't know who "Lord St. Albans" was, but many would recognize the name "Sir Francis Bacon." In this case, at least, I think that "also known as Sir Francis Bacon" (without creating a fragment, of course, as had previously existed) is a good idea. I made a note of his peerage titles and his knighthood in the first paragraph, but that may be confusing and you might remove it if you wish. ugen64 21:54, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Royal titles and styles

Proteus, what is your position on the styling of British Royal Family members in Wikipedia pages that are not personal royal pages (eg say mentioning a member of the Royal Family on the 2004 or September 26 or any of the "Deaths" pages?) Should they be styled formally eg His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, informally, The Prince of Wales, or incorrectly, eg Prince Charles???? I believe they should be styled formally (as per the Wikipedia's page for that royal), rather than follow informal or potentially incorrect positions? Astrotrain 22:51, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thats interesting response, and what I personnaly try to do, however, some people think on the 2004 page that saying HRH Prince Harry of Wales is NPOV, and offensive. Astrotrain

Hi Proteus! I just asked in the british monarchs family trees what improvements you suggest. By the way, i share your curse of having prolific parents as far as naming is concerned: i was blessed with 4 propers and 3 surnames :( Cheers! [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 13:01, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(The) Christian Institute

Hi Proteus, just wondered by you moved The Christian Institute back to the Christian Institute page. I believe the official title of this organisation is "The Christian Institute" and I moved it to this page from "Christian Institute" after I noticed, for example, that The Guardian retains the "The" in it's title. Am I wrong about Wikipedia policy regarding page titles? Or am I wrong about the title of the CI? --Axon 15:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough :) --Axon 16:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Zürich

Please add you vote to the Zurich page. I came to it because of the conversion of all the words on the Second Battle of Zurich which means that the battle does not show up in search engines any more. Philip Baird Shearer 17:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but please add a vote and get anyone else who thinks it is silly to do the same thing, because at the moment those in favour of Zürich have the majority of the votes cast. Philip Baird Shearer 18:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

six-month-old polls without anything even remotely resembling consensus cannot overrule Wikpedia policy — go easy on the poor umlaut, Proteus. Your opponents are not evil policy-breakers, they just argue that this is not as clear a case as you think. Nobody objects to Cologne, so you will have to admit that exactly where the policy draws the line is disputable. I would rather not see an edit war because of something like that. regards, dab 14:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Proteus! The deed is done. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 10:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it! Happy cheers! [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 13:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Getting edit counts

If you want a count of your edits, please visit kate's toolt. That's done in a far more efficient way than getting a list of your contributions. You can increase your chances of getting old contributions results by using one browser window at a time and going page by page. The later pages have to scan past the earlier results, so doing the early pages gives some chance to cache the results. If you find steps of 500 too much, you may need to use smaller steps. Jamesday 13:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Helixblue

Thanks for catching that, but I'm a little confused... how can there be two of them? Gamaliel 01:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The imposter used a capital I instead of a lowercase L in the name. Good catch Proteus, they're identical on my screen. silsor 01:03, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, low tech ingenuity. Well done. Gamaliel 01:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Block

Thanks for responding so quickly. Out of interest, what does "unblocked #12187", "unblocked #12189" etc mean in the block log? - Xed 22:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the value in have 3RR enforcement if it's not. Xed's last edit may have been in good faith, but the 3 previous reverts were an edit war. -- Netoholic @ 05:04, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Earl of Leicester

Hello, Could you be really kind and check my facts on the Earls of Leicester in the final paragraph of Holkham Hall the information on [3] does not tie in with the number of creations and exact title descriptions as that on this site [4]. I find the whole thing quite confusing enough as it is. Just out of interest who are the Townsends and where do they fit into the picture. Holkham Hall is really an architectural page, but I think it still needs to be clear. Thanks a lot Giano 15:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right!! I think I'm with you, so in the page Holkham Hall, can they all be correctly referred to as simply Earl of Leicester?, and then just specify the creation. Since trying to sort this out I've found there are several pages all a little confused. Why does Holkham's own site refer to the present Earl of L as of the 2nd creation, when here on Wiki he is the 7th. Which should I call it? Thanks for the help so far Giano 17:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep! I think I have that, could you just look though at Holkham Hall (last paragraph) and check I have grasped it. Its all so much simpler where I come from, just so long as the creation was before Napoleon, one is either in or out, black or white! Thanks for the help, I appreciate it. Giano 19:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr on Ariel Sharon

(cur) (last) 06:46, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The NPOV version with no objections to it replaces the POV hagiography)
(cur) (last) 06:35, 3 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Revert edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Ferkelparade. We arenot required to fallaciously "prove" a negative. You are, however, required to discuss your proposed changes on talk.)
(cur) (last) 06:15, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Updated neutral bio (still no objections in Talk))
(cur) (last) 12:34, 2 Dec 2004 Ferkelparade m (rv)
(cur) (last) 12:30, 2 Dec 2004 130.37.20.20 (Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War)
(cur) (last) 09:06, 2 Dec 2004 MPerel (HistoryBuffEr, stop replacing article with your personal version)
(cur) (last) 08:59, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Restore the neutral version, to which NO objections have been made)
(cur) (last) 08:43, 2 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Wk muriithi. Please propose major changes in talk.)
(cur) (last) 08:35, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The more neutral bio is back, post objections in Talk (haven't seen any yet))

While his previous blocking appears to have been a mistake, this looks to me like 4 reverts in 24 hours, and is quite provocative given the recent RfC against Quadell. What do you think? Jayjg 16:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your support on this, Proteus. Holding HistoryBuffEr to account for his violations is always stressful. He's a very skilled button-presser. Maybe another sort of person would enjoy this sort of confrontation, but I really don't. Still, it has to be done, for the integrity of Wikipedia.

The ironic thing is, I can't stand Arial Sharon! I think he's a terrible leader. I'm not Jewish, and I've never been particularly interested in Jewish history. (Arial Sharon isn't on my watchlist.) I've worked on dozens of articles about Arab culture, tried to work against a slight anti-Muslim bias, and fought against referring to the 9/11 hijackers as "terrorists". But now I'm a Zionist POV-pusher on a personal vindetta, or so I hear. *sigh* So it's hard to take this invective sometimes.

After the last incident, I told myself I'd just ignore troublesome users. It's certainly easier. But this situation came up, and. . . I just don't want the best, most open, most free on-line encyclopedia to be ruled by the loudest and most obnoxious. And I don't want a person to be immune to the rules, just because he's made everyone sick of dealing with him. So I'm rambling, but anyway, thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:00, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello again. HistoryBuffer is under a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR. He has continued to edit while not logged on, signing his name to these edits.[5]

According to User:UninvitedCompany: "The usual procedure regarding blocks in general in the past, has been that evading the block results in: the time period for the block beginning anew, any contributions made in evasion of the block being reverted, blocking any IPs used to evade the block, blocking any new identities used to evade the block."

HistoryBuffEr has now filed a Request for Arbitration against me, while still under this block. I feel it would be inappropriate of me to roll back this change, since it involves me, but I would appreciate it if another sysop would do this for me.

Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:26, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Update: Someone else already did this. Thanks anyway! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Note about your actions

Hello Proteus,

You recently reverted all HistoryBuffEr's posts related to unjustified blocking, including a Request for Arbitration regarding the blocking.

By reverting legitimate objections you have obstructed the process of contesting the unjustified blocking and interfered with the arbitration process. As Guanaco explained to you:

"Blocks are not bans. It makes no sense to block an IP/account that is not making bad edits."

You also supported Quadell's recent blocking of my user-id in violation of rules, an action which even Quadell admitted was wrong.

Your actions are evidently not consistent with the principle of neutrality.

As you had previously abused sysop privileges by protecting and reverting an article in which I was involved, it appears to be an issue of personal animosity. I would welcome your explanation, and I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from questionable actions until further dicsussions.

Thanks, HistoryBuffEr 04:28, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

I reverted your edits in accordance with standard procedure, since you were evading a block at the time. As to the other matters, I believe others have already explained the situation to you sufficiently, and I see nothing further that I can add to their comments. I also see no point in further discussions on this matter, and I certainly won't let your ridiculous allegations interfere in any way with the proper execution of my duties as an adminstrator. Proteus (Talk) 19:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 14:44, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Rothermere Retitlings

I posted in the past on alt.talk.royalty my intense anger at your past movement of articles on peers to article titles that use only a single forename rather than all of them (using all of them being,for example,the established tradition of Encyclopaedia Britannica.While I can see tolerating a handful of exceptions for people like the Earl of Mar of 1930-32,I am quite disappointed that you took it upon yourself to move my articles on the Viscounts Rothermere,which I made very sure used the full names even while indicating in their text the primary name the person was known by.Rest assured that I refuse to edit or contribute any articles that observe the indefensible single-name policy,no matter WHO supports it!--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 22:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Saw your answer,answered at my page.--L.E.

DCA says to call a female Lord Justice LADY Justice!

See http://www.dca.gov.uk/judicial/senjudfr.htm and read the line under Forms of Address beginning "Lords Justices of Appeal are referred to by the title..." and pay special attention to the words in square brackets between "Lord" and "Justice".

Kindly do NOT reinstate the Emsworth error again.--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)