User talk:Counter-revolutionary/Archive1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Advice on royalty pages: Wikipedia follows a strict formula for royal pages, in terms of content, layout and naming. The basic rules are:

All monarchs and royal families are named using their highest ranking title; for example, King Edward VIII, not the Duke of Windsor.
Styles are not used in articles; instead, a style box is always used.
The image goes on the top-right hand side of all pages.
For past monarchs and their children, the royal house template is used.
For current monarchs and their descendants, the royal family template is used.
Both templates are never used together.
Because many articles are quite small, with the text sometimes smaller than one template, the royal house template for both houses is not used. Instead only the template of the senior parent (ie, whichever was the monarch, not the consort) is used.
A royal consort has the template of the royal family they marry into, not of the family they were born into, on their page. However once they die, their birth family template replaces the marital royal family template.
With thousands of articles on royalty, and hundreds of contributors to them, the same standard format needs to be used across each article. Any inadvertent content, layout or naming that does not match that format is deleted to restore the article to the agreed format. For full details on royal naming rules, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles).
Any changes that do not follow the Naming Conventions are automatically reverted on sight. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. But so much stuff that broke the MoS and NC rules had been added in that I had to revert to the last page compliant with the MoS and NC. That is standard, unfortunately, when so much POV and MoS-breaking stuff is added. Please do add in information. Just be careful to source it and write it in an NPOV way. WP's job is neither to be pro- or anti- Leka, republicans or monarchists. Edits that appear to push one side fall foul of NPOV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Vittorio Emanuele - Crown Prince?

I disagree with how you have interpreted the guidelines above on this page, please see Talk:Vittorio_Emanuele,_Prince_of_Naples and respond there if wish to progress this. Also, I don't know where the guidelines above come from and whether they are valid and binding (as far as any rule or guideline on Wikipedia can be binding, that is). --SandyDancer 13:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you look here...Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles).? You will find it supports what I have said.--Couter-revolutionary 13:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, those guidelines simply don't support what you have said. Can you actually explain, specifically, how and where the guidelines support your view? --SandyDancer 14:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi I just need your assistance on this issue can you be kind and revert the page content for the principal VE page and revert to the last content ( its because ive done it to many times , you know the 3rr rule , so please move ahead for me) thanks for your assistance --Netquantum 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, would suggest that you shouldn't assist others in violating the 3RR. - Nunh-huh 17:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

you phoney you are the one who first came in because of someone's request. Sandydancer. this is no violation of wikipedia and has nothing to do with kosher , anyone can vote and call for voters--Netquantum 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"phoney"? See Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks --SandyDancer 17:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You've mistated the facts. If your advice to Couter-revolutionary is that he re-do your indiscriminate removal of information, that's bad counsel. - Nunh-huh 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

its not bad counsel its just that eventually Counter revolutionary will and is undertsanding that the article was full of false facts and comments. please stop waisting our time with unnessesary comments and atitudes.--Netquantum 17:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was away and unable to contribute. I shall read through the rest of the article to see what the problems are, thanks goodness, however, he has now come to realise that VE should actually be referred to as Prince of Naples, or at least I think he has.--Couter-revolutionary 17:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me be totally clear - I don't agree he should be referred to as that, and you have not advanced any arguments to support your view that he should. I just don't see any point in arguing the point with you anymore on my own, and will wait for someone else to get involved. You are, I think, adopting a deliberate tactic of trying to confuse the issue by misrepresenting what I have written, and pretending to offer explanations for your view when in fact you are doing no such thing (i.e. you keep referring to the guidelines on royal naming conventions as if they support your argument, but refuse to demonstrate that they do, because you know your claim is false). --SandyDancer 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

not ist just that now I want to revert the article ( i am not the one to do it because ive done it a lot today and need thrid party opinion) , so what is your opinion and the revert so that we can move on with clear content and not carbidge populist false claims. --Netquantum 17:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep obsessively (mis)using the word "populist"? You appear to simply want to obscure the issue by constantly referring to the same tired mantra, hoping it will shield the fact you have deleted half of an article to whitewash the past of the subject. --SandyDancer 17:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Netquantum.--Couter-revolutionary 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

please revert the article and bring it back to the clean content . thanks. the point is still the same most of the article is false. so i suggest cleaning. even if this man is unpopular, there is no reason on posting false reports on wikipedia.--Netquantum 17:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Examples which support my viewpoint Sandydancer include Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece and Leka, Crown Prince of Albania.--Couter-revolutionary 18:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't convince me at all. If anything, those articles should be edited to reflect the fact that they aren't Crown Princes because the thrones they are claiming to be Crown Prince in respect of have both been abolished. I note on the Leka article you are one of the main contributors, by the way, so using that as an example is somewhat circular. It runs contrary to common sense and is extremely POV to refer to members of former royal families by titles they would hold but for the abolition. It is as if we are endorsing their claims. If these are merely "courtesy titles", recognised on royal circuits and by die-hard monarchists, they doesn't justify their inclusion when they have zero legal value. --SandyDancer 18:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Counter-revo. did you see my comments explaining the true historical fact in his Belgian passport it says : HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCIPE DI NAPOLI, DUCHI DI SAVOIA

I simply do not accept that in any country in the world the subject of the article is legally recognised as being royalty. The Belgian Government do not accept that Italy is still a monarchy. No country does. End of story.--SandyDancer 18:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Counter-revo. do you agree to revert the article to the previous page ...!--Netquantum 18:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have had a go at a clean-up of what I think is not NPOV, what do you think.--Couter-revolutionary 18:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done a few clean up as well :)--Netquantum 18:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't agree that Vittorio Emanuele should be referred to as "Prince of Naples" as if that is settled fact - it is a nonsense to refer to him as such. However, it is clearly preferable to referring to him as "Crown Prince of Italy", which is considerably more ridiculous. Vittorio Emanuele no longer has any Italian royal or noble titles, as such titles were abolished under the Italian Constitution in 1946. I am just not willing to argue the point any more as another user has pointed out that doing so is an uphill struggle, and not one I am currently interested in undertaking. --SandyDancer 10:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are aware that User:Netquantum is stating that you agree with his deletion of sourced and unbiased material from the Vittorio Emanuele article. I cannot imagine you do in fact agree with this - your edits to the article were largely to do with naming conventions, but he is involving you in the broader dispute about whether the "controversies" section of the article should be blanked / NPOV tag placed on the article. --SandyDancer 12:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

House of Savoy Referrendum

Worth pointing out that the institution of monarchy was abolished in Italy by a parliament packed with communists. Also worth pointing out that it is the prerogative of the monarch, whether in situ or in exile, to bestow whatever titles he wishes, something which has always been his gift and has nothing whatsoever to do with parliaments. 213.122.40.214 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've got me mixed up with someone else as I absoulutely agree with you 100%. I also believe a Monarch's right to give honours (whether on the throne or not) is a natural and inate right, which cannot be taken away. I hope this puts your mind to rest; I am a monarchist.--Couter-revolutionary 14:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Worth pointing out that the institution of monarchy was abolished in Italy by a parliament packed with communists" - no, it was abolished following a referendum, and the reasons why the people made the choice were clear.

Rigged referrendum with massive irregularities especially in places like Bologna. But in any case it was the parliament who actually abolished the monarchy by Statute. A referrendum alone cannot abolish anything. Read Robert Gayre's book: A Case for Monarchy. Gayre was the Allies' Education Minister during the occupation and was there during the 'referrendum'. In any case I don't think it can be disputed that almost one third of the Italian electorate voted communist after the war. As communists do not believe in democracy should we accept their therefore tarnished vote? (See also: Daniele Varé, Twilight of the Kings, London, 1948, "The Fall of the Monarchy in Italy" pps: 140 - 149).213.122.26.72 14:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"I also believe a Monarch's right to give honours (whether on the throne or not) is a natural and inate right, which cannot be taken away". Only makes any sense if, as you say you are, one is a Monarchist. Even if you are a monarchist, don't you draw distinctions between monarchies like Italy's that only emerged in the modern world as an expedient on the whim of politicians, and those that have endured for centuries (like Britain's, Japan's and some others) and acquired a legitimacy through longevity and the the evolution of a constitution around the institution of monarchy?

I am interested in your responses. I am certainly not being rude so please don't respond as if I am! --SandyDancer 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The House of Savoy could hardly be called a Royal House which emerged only in the modern world. You are confusing the House with the unification of Italy. There have been numerous Royal occasions at Westminster Abbey where the programmes referred to the special guests who would be in attendance as: King Michael of Romania, King Umberto of Italy, etc. Monarchs who are forced to abdicate or flee their countries are not regarded in a great many circles (especially our Royal Family) as anything other than the legitimate sovereigns-in-exile. (See also: Charles Fenyvesi, Royalty in Exile, London, 1981). 213.122.26.72 14:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Yes I quite agree with you. I shall look up some of those books, although I believe I have already read/ encountered a few. It's good to know there are some other sane people using Wikipedia. --Couter-revolutionary 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. No, I don't actually draw distinctions between monarchies which are ancient and those which are not. For a start the Savoys were royalty anyway who were elevated to Kings of a unified Italy, the country had not previously existed. This is similar to what happened in Germany and I definitely support their royal family who were the ancient Kings of Prussia. As well as this I also agree with the founding of the Albanian Monarchy and the House of Zogu, as, if one knows about King Zog's life, there were a lot of occurances, which, I believe paved the way for his rightful place as King of Albania. King Zog was, however, also descended from an ancient aristocreatic family and the legendary King, Skandebeg. Hope this helps.--Couter-revolutionary 11:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You talk about occurences having "paved the way for [Zog's] rightful place as King of Albania". What kind of occurences could these be?

I take your point about the Savoys and the Hohenzollern's gaining legitmacy from having been a reigning royal family of a monarchy which became a constituent part of a larger one.

What I don't understand is how you can claim that monarchs per se, even when deposed by Parliaments or the people in a referendum, can still claim legitimacy and royal status, especially as you seem to be saying that this is the case irrespective of the monarchy in question's history of how they came to power? If monarchies are so easy to make, why can they not be unmade? What special event happens when someone declares themself, or is declared, a monarch which means they can never be removed? What happens when succession rules change by act of a legislature, meaning the person who is next in line to the throne no longer accedes in favour of someone else? Is the new monarch illegitimate, or does the act of the legislature which changed the line of succession make it legitimate? If the latter, how come it is OK for a legislature to change the line of succession or some other basic characteristic of a monarchy but not OK for a monarchy to be abolished in the same way? --SandyDancer 12:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

There are extremely few monarchies in the past 1000 years which have been established by parliaments or the masses, who owe their allegience to their monarch, and not visa versa. Therefore any act against their monarch is essentially treason. 213.122.26.72 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well in King Zog's case there were many factors. I believe his family history had been building up to his being crowned King, there was a prophecy at his birth fortelling him as the "Star of Mati", he had lead his troops into battle and been democratically elected. I believe that there is a certain amount of power needed to found a monarchy which is more transcendant than what we are used to in this world, I appreciate you may find that odd, and it probably sounds odder than I mean it too. These people, Kings of Men, do posess qualities other's don't, Zog certainly did. There is a very good biography of Queen Geraldine, Zog's consort, which goes into this better than I could, (by Gwen Robyns: Geraldine of the Albanians, London, 1987. See also: Ferdinand Schevill: A History of the Balkans, 1922.) There are some monarchies I do not believe fulfilled the "criteria for establishment", for instance I do not recognise Bokassa of the Central African Empire! I hope this explains what I mean, although it is hard to put it into words! Essentially it's a gut feeling that the throne belongs to a Monarch as a birth right...--Couter-revolutionary 14:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that your belief in the innate legitimacy of some monarchies (but not all, e.g. Bokassa) stems from a religious or quasi-religious belief? The reason I ask is that it does not appear to stem from any conventional jurisprudential theories. --SandyDancer 15:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that could be said to be true to a certain extent, although of course some form of legality is required, hence the need for coronations &c. One must remember also that even Zog was brought into power on a wave of popular thought!--Couter-revolutionary 15:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a great many books on monarchy, conventional and otherwise. Try, for instance, The Divine Right of Kings by John Neville Figgis, Cambridge University Press, 1st edition 1896, 2nd edition, 1914, reprint 1922. 213.122.26.72 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, hope you are well, can you look in this issue at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviga and give me push because Petegranger seems to be working for this product or new on Wikipedia, the only thing he has ever edited so far is Enviga...--Netquantum 11:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

BRoy Style Guide

I've just created a proposal for our Style Guide - HERE - please do discuss it on the talk page // D B D 12:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone left a message on my talk page saying everything is all right now with the article. Can you confirm that on my talk page so I can take the appropriate actions? Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Stronge Baronets

Good set of articles. Well done. Not sure about "one of Ulsters oldest baronetcies" - see Baronetcies of Ireland and Great Britain, neither of which specify Ulster or Ireland though. Please add one source and delete the unreferenced template. Please can you also create an article to complete each red-link. - Kittybrewster 08:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that a whole forest of articles should be created. Certainly this two men are notable enough for articles, but lets not go wild and create a load of articles that will be very low on content and remain forever stubs - they will simply be deleted. --SandyDancer 10:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Righto, although most were notable, see what you think about them...--Couter-revolutionary 10:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me you are creating completely empty articles about an entire dynasty of little known aristocrats. Just because some of the ancestors of the Stronges were baronets, doesn't make them notable. Surely you could just list them in your article about the Stronge family rather than creating all these stubs? --SandyDancer 11:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, yes. Although I don't see what harm having an article each has, especially as I hope to expand them. One must admit they are fairly notable! Could I simply copy and paste each of their stubs into the main Stronge Family page below their name then? --Couter-revolutionary 11:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assert they are notable? The baronetcy they each held might well be notable, but that doesn't mean each holder deserves an article. --SandyDancer 12:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Because each held positions such as Lord Lieutenant, High Sheriff, Justice of the Peace and, not to mention, Member of Parliament. I think these are notable, don't you? Although I do see your point in simply making the Stronge Family article bigger.--Couter-revolutionary 12:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I agree those positions make the people notable, and that perhaps you need time to make the articles provide full details. These things take a while. If each of the people you are creating articles about held titles such as those you list above, then I can't see any reason why the articles won't be worthwhile. --SandyDancer 12:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, having seen the Stronge Baronets article, I was just looking in Burke's Peerage to check the blazon for the coat of arms. I notice that the picture of the arms in the article, Image:Random_003.jpg, looks identical to the one in Burke's. I also notice that the summary on the Image page says only that you photographed it yourself. Might I ask from where you photographed it? I believe copyright in an image lasts until 70 years after the artist's death (or possibly 70 years after first publication), so the image may not satisfy Wikipedia's copyright requirements. (I don't think photographing a two dimensional work generates any new copyright.) Dr pda 14:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than have no image, you might ask Orror to create an image for the article. - Kittybrewster 14:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in copyright either :) Most of my knowledge comes from trying to work out which image tag to use when I want to upload something (and in general to avoid complications, I only upload images I have created myself or are sufficiently old that they are definitely public domain) There's a few pages dealing with copyright for images used on Wikipedia - eg Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Regarding coats of arms one has to distinguish between the ownership of/copyright in the arms (as defined by the blazon, or written description) and the copyright in the depiction of the arms (in principle there are an infinite number of ways of illustrating the arms described by a given blazon). It is the second which is most relevant for Wikipedia. It is not possible to claim fair use, since a free alternative is in principle available (if one is artistically talented one can draw the coat of arms from the blazon). You might like to have a look at the discussion here about inclusion of images, and also at the tag {{coatofarms}}. There is a project (fr:Projet:Blasons) over at the French wikipedia for making wikipedia-usable images of coats of arms, as a result of which there are lots of heraldic charges etc over at Commons. Finally there are a few flow charts here regarding when images etc become public domain in the UK. Hope this is of some use. The reason I brought up the copyright in the first place is that from what I've read on various pages, the number of non-free images which are uploaded is a major issue (plus if you want to get the article to FA-status, image copyright is one of the main things people jump on after inline citations :) ). Dr pda 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does, doesn't it. Created by fr.User:Orror. No copyright problems there. I was not sure that Manson & Echlin are ancestors of the present Baronet and if they are not, they shouldn't be on the shield. I was assuming Debretts is correct and Burkes is out of date. I also assumed both crests and both mottoes DO belong to the present incumbent, but you may know better. - Kittybrewster 17:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Tfoxworth

I'm writing him up for 3RR right now. I'll post the link on your page when it is done. I've also notified an administrator. Charles 21:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this link works: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Tfoxworth_reported_by_User:Cfvh_.28Result:.29. Charles 21:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He received a 24H block. When he returns, exercise caution in reverting. Apparently, even restoring proper material too often can result in a block for well-meaning editors. Charles 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarawak

The article Anthony Walter Dayrell Brooke does not qualify for the 3RR as there are no intermediate edits by another person... A person editing immediately after they have edited are not guilty of the 3RR, unfortunately. If a person reverts 4 time in exactly 24 hours or less, he or she will be banned if you write them up so long as you are not guilty of the same. Charles 17:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added several of the pages to my watchlist to keep an eye on them. At least one of the editors I recognize as someone with the desire to "republicanize" varying members of deposed/former royal families. Charles 17:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

St. John Philby

Greetings. Regarding your comment that pronouncing "St. John" as "Sinjin" is obvious, I disagree. I must assure you although it may be obvious in the UK and in many Commonwealth countries, it would definitely not be obvious to perhaps 99% of people in the USA (that’s about 300 million people) nor to millions of other people around the world for whom English is a non-Native language. If Philby was more typically addressed as "St. John Philby" than "Harry Philby", I think we should reinsert that pronunciation note. I hope you agree. Thanks. ◄HouseOfScandal ► 18:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Constantine

He is not King of the Hellenes and does not call himself King of the Hellenes. I agree that once he is dead the article should revert to his regnal title, but while he is alive he should be called by the name by which he is most commonly known and which he uses himself, which (in English) is Constantine of Greece. Adam 23:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, however, Wikipedia guidelines on this issue should be examined.--Couter-revolutionary 23:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines also say that living people should be called by the best-known form of their names. It is not uncommon for Wikipedia guidelines to contradict each other. In this case I think "most common form" should prevail. Adam 00:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Is King of Greece most common? I know him as King of the Hellenes? --Couter-revolutionary 09:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

How well do you know him? Sup in the same pubs?

"Alright, King of the Hellenes? How you doing mate?"

"King of the Hellenes, its your round, son."

"Yeah it was a wicked night, me, Bazza, Micky, Dave and King of the Hellenes...we had a blast."

????? --SandyDancer 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is none of your business how I know him. --Couter-revolutionary 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

~~:-) --SandyDancer 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)~~

Cullen-Ward

You're tugging your forelock a bit too much. Landowner is a five-dollar word for a farmer or rancher. They raise sheep for heavens sake. Farmer is not a dirty word, as they range from dirt poor to ultra rich; I know more than one English duke who right describes himself as a farmer. Just because someone is listed in Burke's Colonial Gentry doesn't mean he or she isn't a farmer.Mowens35 16:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly - the aristos I knew at uni invariably described their dads as "farmers". Farmer is indeed not a dirty word - it is a badge of pride. Landowner implies someone who spends most his time in town and simply collects rents from an estate somewhere. --SandyDancer 16:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, please don't mistake what I did for ignorance; you have no idea who I am. The reason I did it was because I considered it gave a more accurate representation of the amount of land &c. they own out in Australia. --Couter-revolutionary 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC) PS, I am happy with the edit as it now rests.

"you have no idea who I am"? Is that intentionally hilarious? --SandyDancer 16:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it was not. Please do stop harassing me, it does become tiresome; and I ask that you might remove the last comment you made. It adds nothing to anything. You have no need to reply to this other than to do as I ask, if you so wish.--Couter-revolutionary 16:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Leka, "incorrect"

leave it, it is a mistake, though he really wasn't king of anything at any timeMowens35 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Righto, I've explained it on the Talk page anyway.--Couter-revolutionary 00:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fish

Hello. In execution of the consensus decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Andrews University Scottish Nationalist Association, you're hereby presented with a fish. I hope to have been of service. Best, Sandstein 19:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Monday Club

Thanks for your efforts (however futile) on the Conservative Monday Club page. I see it has been "sorted" by The Left. It is sad that these people control Wikipedia and are reducing everything to Guardian rhetoric. I do wonder if they've ever looked at an encyclopaedia. Chelsea Tory 13:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

pedigrees

You may wish to check the several genealogical trees mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek pedigree of Empress Sisi. Maed 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem

I am carefully cataloguing User SandyDancer's edits and comments. He is clearly very jaundiced towards any form of conservatism and monarchy etc. There was an appalling User on Wikpedia before called homey who is said to have left. But has he? Viewing his comments and similar attacks on the same things I wonder if this is the same person. Once I think I have the time to put together a reasonable case I will make a formal complaint. Chelsea Tory 16:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not homey. If you seriously think I am I suggest you make a checkuser request.

In the meantime, doing what you are doing is called wikistalking and you probably shouldn't do it.

For someone with a username like yours, who announced that Wikipedia needs "a Real Conservative policeman" on his user page, you have a cheek suggesting others have a biased agenda. Your personal political views do not represent a neutral point of view - so when someone edits an article in a way you don't like, you can't just accuse them of being on some sort of mission, especially when you yourself are on one by your own admission. --SandyDancer 23:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use my Talk page for debate which isn't addressed to you. You seemed to go through a period of following my edits, surely this was "Wiki-stalking".--Couter-revolutionary 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. I decided that you were in the process of editing lots of articles about deposed monarchs in a way I believed to be incorrect and to be representative of your own point of view rather than neutral fact. That isn't Wikistalking.

Also please note you don't own this talk page and I am perfectly entitled to be part of this - or any - discussion on Wikipedia. --SandyDancer 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you've made that comment before. It is, however, polite to only enter into conversations of which you can be helpful and/or are addressed to you. There is no point to verbose debate. I think that is all I have to say on the matter.--Couter-revolutionary 12:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I am entitled to participate in a conversation about me, where allegations of misconduct and personal attacks have been made. --SandyDancer 13:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone should bear in mind Wikipedia:Harassment. I think prolonging this exchange probably doesn't serve a useful purpose. Charles Matthews 16:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree, SandyDancer was not being "harassed", nothing has even been directed at him. This conversation was intended to be between ChelseaTory and myself, granted this is impossible on Wikipedia.--Couter-revolutionary 16:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that Sandy Dancer is both arrogant and dictatorial. Why should my User name be offensive? Britain has had eminent Tories for centuries. The whole problem with the Left is that because they are so (obviously) biased they wish to create an illusion of balance by accusing those not in their camp of the same thing. I believe that I am unbiased. At least I have been honest about myself, and given his atrocious edits which are thinly veiled attacks in themselves, more honest than he. Chelsea Tory 11:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you even make one post on a talk page without peppering it with numerous personal attacks? I am growing tired of your persistent pattern of abuse and harassment, principally aimed at me it would seem. I will notify you before I seek administrative censure or sanction for your behaviour, but note that unless you stop doing this I will have to do so. --SandyDancer 12:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

BRoy titles templates poll

Hi, Counter-revolutionary/Archive1! I've just started a poll about Category:British royal titles templates, and would really value your input - please do have your say! Cheers, – D B D 13:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

A Happy New Year to you, counter-revolutionary. I see that User:SandyDancer has "retired" from Wikipedia. Possibly I (and doubtless others) were getting a bit too close to identifying him as a sock-puppet. Anyway, I hope you are still soldiering on. I have been very busy with my family over Christmas and New Year (not to mention work!), as well as having my parents to stay, so I have have not been able to find the time to edit etc. Every good wish. Chelsea Tory 19:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Regicide

Please see Talk:Regicide#Savang Vatthana --Philip Baird Shearer 15:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Assassination

I think this word is not POV at all. Strictly factual. People on both sides have been assassinated by people on the other side. Fact. - Kittybrewster 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove referenced material, it is considered vandalism - if it is not reinserted than I will report you.--Vintagekits 00:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There are folks who say "Never argue with st*p*d people; there is no point". Your articles are excellent and much appreciated. - Kittybrewster 17:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA--Vintagekits 17:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Baron Alexis de Rédé

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Baron Alexis de Rédé, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Baron Alexis de Rédé. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. --Vintagekits 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Seen this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vintagekits

Interesting? Chelsea Tory 11:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please improve Arbuthnot Road. - Kittybrewster 11:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

WP:BLP and WP:NPA

I have removed material that is in violation of these policies. It is advisable not to even give the appearance of endorsing such attacks. Tyrenius 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What have I done to offend the biographies of living persons or to make a personal attack... I was merely hypothesising over the action to take against a user who continually "stalks" my edits. --Couter-revolutionary 20:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been established that wikipedia editors also benefit from this policy, as they are living persons. I recommend deleting posts from your talk page if they are like the one in question, and certainly not giving the appearance of endorsing it. You have to be careful about accusations of stalking, i.e. harrassment, to differentiate between a legitimate interest in a subject, and an interest purely in the editor for the sake of causing him trouble. The latter is usually apparent when the editor goes to a completely different subject area and still finds himself being pursued. This makes evidence. Tyrenius 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

I have logged onto WP for the first time in ages, and have left a couple of talk comments for ChelseaTory and thought I'd do the same for you. As you know I have retired from WP, and have no regrets about doing so. All the bickering got tiresome. However with the benefit of hindsight, I now see that despite differences over editing style, you are actually a net contributor to this project, far more than others. So for creating all the articles listed on your user page and remaining interested in doing so despite all the arguments, I SandyDancer award you:

Best wishes for the future and farewell. --SandyDancer 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits

Nearly all your edits are marked as minor. You may have got this set as a default in your preferences. Edits should only be marked as minor when they concern things such as spelling, formatting, punctuation, etc, but not if they relate to content in any way. Tyrenius 22:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct and this is set as default. I shall try to be more careful.--Couter-revolutionary 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Gilmour‎

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Gilmour- another AFD for a non notable IRA member Astrotrain 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

OTRS is for the people who have to answer Wikipedia's e-mail. We got a very polite letter from the prince's son explaining that his father was 100% mentally normal, and asking that we please remove this false and defamatory statement. DS 03:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Maurice Gerard Moynihan

Dear Couter-revolutionary, You have on 15 February altered a new article and left its original reference footnote no.1 in a de-wikified raw state; furthermore you have not explained your reasons. I would appreciate your not indulging in such arbitrary editing, but rather revert your comments to the talk-page of the article concerned. Tim Griffin 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen your comments on my talk-page, and as I indicated there, please pay more attention to detail: the article did NOT claim he was the "greatest civil servant" but ONE OF them - and few people in Ireland would doubt that, except perhaps begrudgers in extremist quarters. As for other sources? ... Would the President of Ireland be enough for you? Or Professors Lynch, Lee, UCD or the larger National University of Ireland (which bestowed an honorary doctorate) or the Central Bank itself, which observed that his contribution "to the development of the State was significant and enduring"? So, it's not just the view of the Irish Times. In an event, I have taken KittyBrewster's advice and you hopefully will now be more comfortable with the text.Tim Griffin 09:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Katharine of Aragon

Hello there. Just wondering if you could give some advice on a debate on the Catherine of Aragon page regarding the spelling of her name. There is some heated discussion on the discussion page, could you drop by and add your thoughts?? CheersPaul75 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to the debate, greatly appreciated! Paul75 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Monarchist League

It is not notible, It is not a registered organisation, It does not publish accounts, It does not have a constitution. If it shouldn't be deleted, then it wont be. It isn't my decision whether it is deleted or not, I merely reported it. I'm growing very tired of you, I suggested it for deletion FULL STOP!!! It's association with me ended then!!! It is nothing more to do with me, take it up with Wikipedia. Unsigned by User:RepublicUK

For interest, the IML does publish accounts and has a constitution. Not that the above user would care however.--Couter-revolutionary 12:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, charming Republicans!--Couter-revolutionary 10:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Monarchist League does indeed have a constitution and copies of the annual accounts have always been available to the membership upon request. There is no facility in Great Britain for "registered" association unless he is speaking of charitable status, In addition, the Monarchist League is part of The Monarchist Trust Ltd., a registered company, and copies of its annual accounts are available through Companies House, Swansea, Wales. How anyone could say that such a well-known organisation which has, and through which have passed, thousands of members, including prominent personages, belies description. 86.136.191.212 16:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Bodkin Adams

Hi, you're right JBA was not convicted, but I still think he should be included as a serial killer. The book cited in the article - Stranger in Blood - though long-winded has the benefit of being the first written with full access to police archives (meant to be secret till 2033). The archives clearly provide enough evidence (much not shown in court) to show beyond reasonable doubt that JBA murdered a large number of his patients. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malick78 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

User:RepublicUK and Federal Commonwealth Society

I had left the following on the above users talk page, the deleted it, however, without answering my issue:

You have clearly not researched this organisation at all before proposing it for deletion. In the AfD page you make claims about it, which are either unreferenced or simply untrue. --Couter-revolutionary 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I care as much about what you think as I do about investment opportunities in Yemen.

The above comment, unsigned, was left by User:RepublicUK.

Comments from the Peanut Gallery (with some interest in seeing the FCS page stay up). User Pages are just that, User Pages. People have a lot more freedom in 'user space' than on the main page. I self-identify my biases on my user page, and think that others should do so as well (civilly of course, without 'loaded terms'). Perhaps RepublicUK's self-identification with the anti-monarchy organization was a 'good thing'. If you wish to engage a user in discussions of the impact his or her bias may have on his actions in the main space, I think the appropriate place for that is the 'talk page' of the article, or in the discussion of the subject page (like the AfD discussion page) Of course, it might be wise to simply note that you think the user is operating with a POV agenda, and let the community determine that based on the actions... Like I said, just thoughts from the peanut gallery. Bo 14:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've warned the user about civility, and have noted on the AfD nomination page that the user appears to be a single-purpose account. I didn't vote in the AfD, but I do think that there's a notability problem on FCS and couldn't find any sources myself in a simple Google search, so I would suggest that you try to find some solid media mention of this org if you don't want to see the article deleted. I hope this helps! | Mr. Darcy talk 15:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Couter-rev, do you have a guess as to who RepublicUK might be? There's no way this is a brand-new user, and Kittybrewster thinks you're his/her main target. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Torrens-Spence

Just created a stub so feel free to update as you see fit. I can't see me being able to do too much on him in the near future so extra hands would be great. Very good of you to help. Weggie 20:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

New Category

I've created a new category for us to play with: Category:Members of the Privy Council of Northern Ireland - Sir Norman? Weggie 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, found this one Category:Deputy Lieutenants Weggie 16:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Sir"

You are about to break the three revert rule at British National Party. If you re-add the changes again in the next 24 hours, you will be violating this rule and I will, reluctantly, be forced to block you per policy. Please discuss on the talk page, and perhaps at the appropriate manual of style page before making this addition again. Thank you. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up ont he talk page. I would be glad to entertain arguments for keeping it but what i see in the MOS says no. You threw a chunk of text at me but did not apply it to an argument for the keeping of Sir in it. Thanks again for being civil about this. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Couter-revolutionary 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Federal Commonwealth Society

Thanks for letting me know, I may keep an eye on FCS activities, as I do with his Republic group! However I am a member of none :) Brian | (Talk) 01:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

Your comment at the beginning of this section, in this edit is a blatant violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP. If it's not retracted immediately when you next edit, you will be blocked. You have been warned before about such conduct. If you repeat this kind of behaviour again, don't expect a warning. If you have something to say, there are proper ways to say it. If you have a justifiable complaint about another user, then are means to address that. Abusing people isn't one of them. Tyrenius 00:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your warning for this outburst

I now realise the reason you struck the comment out was to avoid being blocked instead of having the grace to apologies.--Vintagekits 11:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your warning for this outburst

I now realise the reason you struck the comment out was to avoid being blocked instead of having the grace to apologies.--Vintagekits 11:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (dont not archieve open discussions)

I have replied on your talk page that I believe the matter resolved, the statement has been retracted and there is no reason to continue this discussion. --Counter-revolutionary 11:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why didnt you apologies for such a disgusting outburst?--Vintagekits 12:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I apparently got the wrong end of the stick; due to this my initial comments have been retracted. --Counter-revolutionary 12:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was bang out of order to leave a messege like that and I have never spoken to anyone on wiki like that - In my opinion you are showing a distinct lack of grace for refusing to apologies for your statement, which is what I would have done immediately if the shoe was on the other foot.--Vintagekits 12:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:TynanAbbey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TynanAbbey.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC FOR USER:VINTAGEKITS (UPDATED)

According to a helper, the RfC for User:Vintagekits is not complete because you did not sign off in the proper place. You need to sign off in the section directly above where you endorsed the RfC in the area called Users certifying the basis for this dispute in the section known as "Requests for comment/User conduct". Thanks.O'Donoghue 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

In case you are thinking of doing anything similar, I think you ought to read WP:CANVAS more carefully. You might also like to read the comments on Kittybrewster's talk page.[1] Tyrenius 02:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never done anything like canvassing and take exception to being given this warning. --Counter-revolutionary 07:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly good canvassing and bad canvassing. --Major Bonkers 12:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bloody disgrace. --Counter-revolutionary 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Its pretty hard to canvass someone who is already involved in the discussion--Vintagekits 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. Just like these ones: #1; #2; #3; #4; #5; #6.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you will actually find if you do your research that they werealready invloved. regards--Vintagekits 10:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that they were only contributing because your sockpuppet had originally canvassed them to go there: #1; #2; #3; #4; #5; #6; #7; #8; #9; #10; #11; #12; #13; #14; #15; #16 and [2]. Just to remind you, your sockpuppet canvassed (in December) in respect of the Mediation Cabal, and you canvassed (in January) for the discussion related to the same Mediation Cabal - amusingly, this was 'evaluated' by Tyrenius - (this was completely separate from a Manual of Style discussion, to which you refer in your posting). All of these related to the usage of the term 'volunteer' in the context of the IRA.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lady_birdwood.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lady_birdwood.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia 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. — Music Maker 5376 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.... — Music Maker 5376 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. — Music Maker 5376 22:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Your face is familiar," [Gatsby] 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. — Music Maker 5376 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: '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)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia BC and AD are being replaced with the atheistic and communist term Common era. What is your 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 in order to appease political scum. Is this now a general policy? Next they'll abolish £ signs I suppose! --Counter-revolutionary 09:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather like Chair instead of Chairman. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's too many of this sort of thing in life. --Counter-revolutionary 12:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that this conversation is ongoing at the Common era talk page. In terms of Wikipedia, you can find the rules at WP:MOSTIME. Basically, either format can be used so long as that format is maintained throughout, for consistency - Alison ^❤ 16:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I know which one I think is more accurate. --Counter-revolutionary 17:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you know which one is absolutely correct and which one is not. (I see elsewhere that we are still being watched by the usual suspects who seem to feel that we are unable to have a conversation without their consent.) David Lauder 18:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, indeed. Yes, of course, on Wikipedia one can never favour correct form and precedent! --Counter-revolutionary 18:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys - if you want a private conversation, there's email. This is a public arena. Using terms to refer to atheists as "scum" isn't very pleasant, now is it, jest or no? - Alison ^❤ 18:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this is the Talk Page of Counter-Revolutionary, not a common forum or workshop page. We are permitted to discuss Wikipedia articles on each other's Talk Pages. Might one ask how you came to be on this page? David Lauder 09:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It bothers me that this discussion is being discussed on Vk's talk page. What is that about, I wonder? - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No, both of you need to tone it down. That's not a request. El_C 11:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha. If it's not a request what is it? --Counter-revolutionary 13:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A decree! El_C 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) If you guys do dislike the CE format, and aren't just shooting the breeze, then you'd do better to watch out for CfDs and other discussions such as this one than to sound off on talk pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good evening

Seeing that you are currently here tonight might I suggest that the time may have come for you to archive this page? What thinketh you? Regards, David Lauder 19:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit long. I'm going out shortly but shall do this now. --Counter-revolutionary 19:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

honorifics on WP

Sorry to disagree, but this is what WP says about honorifics:

"Styles and honorifics which are derived from noble title, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper. Styles and honorifics which are derived from political activities, including but not limited to The Right Honourable for being a Member of the Privy Council, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper." --Gilabrand 12:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they shouldn't be used in the first line, but convention suggests they are used in the infobox. "Earl of Balfour" makes no sense without the prefix. --Counter-revolutionary 13:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Convention suggests"? Look at the infoboxes for famous rabbis, popes and other Christian clergymen. Even look at Queen Elizabeth. There are no honorifics there. --Gilabrand 13:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about peers. Look at most of those. "Earl of Balfour" suggests a courtesy title, "The Earl of Balfour" is better, but ought only be used with The Rt. Hon. also. --Counter-revolutionary 13:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Use of 'the' is vital Rodolph (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Rodolph, do let me know re. the message I left on your talk page. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find your e-mail, but mine is IFITAN@hotmail.com.

Lough Gur, the lake herself, was sold to Limerick County Council by the (current & 9th) Count de Salis in 1979. This was, I think, the finale. I'm not sure of the exact dates of the previous land alienations, presumedly these dated back to the Irish Land Acts. Though, the Glenogra estate (co. Limerick) was sold in the 1820s to fund the purchase of Dunleer, co. Louth. The partition of these estates with Lord Sandwich c1806 is well documented, as is an earlier sale of land c1760s sanctioned by a private act of parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolph (talk • contribs) 01:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Hervey Photo

I was wondering the date of the photo on the recent addition to the Lord Nicholas Hervey page; I think it would be helpful to add it in the caption. Also, it appears to me that it may be a reproduction of a printed photo due to its look - if that is the case a different photo or a source might be better. Just curious: did he lose the prominent crease b/t his nose and mouth or is it just that particular photo (compare w/the one above it, eg). That said, while I enjoy all type of photos, it is an odd one w/his head at such an angle... He was a handsome man when he was younger - I think it would be nice if possible to present a youthful and then older (sadly, there is a limit on how old, I know) photo. Black (or white) tie would be appropriate. That said, thanks for posting the photo.71.190.78.29 07:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Names in infoboxes

I saw your edit on Arthur Balfour. As this is an issue that doesn't seem to have a clear solution, I've raised the point at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder#Name to use in name field to see if there's any clarity on this matter. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a clear solution. Peers are to be known, in infoboxes, by their highest title. This has been settled for some time. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. I've responded at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder#Name to use in name field. -- The_socialist ^talk? 22:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Oils

I am trying to arrange to visit someone who is a big WP No no, but who the Scottish National Portrait Gallery tell me has some big oil paintings of Harry Lauder and family. I'd like to take digital pictures of them and maybe post one or two. I'll let you know how I get on. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I have an idea who you mean! I'm sure he'll be cooperative. --Counter-revolutionary 22:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Boredom

I'm very bored at the moment. I've just wasted some time writing Wikipedia articles, as good a thing to do as any; Robin Kinahan, Dudley McCorkell, Michael McCorkell, Sir Basil McFarland, 2nd Baronet, Lancelot Curran, Marion Greeves and her mother Dame Elizabeth Cadbury! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dudley McCorkell

My edits here are setting the article in historical context. It was known as Londonderry... then, it would never have been imagined, in the 20s and 30s, that Derry would be used. I do, however, recognise that if this was about a contemporary politician it would be Derry. Feel free to change the situation, or discuss this on the talk page. As I say, I believe it reflects the historical accuracy. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That is orignal research which is not permitted. What is your explaination for the use of Londonderry City Football Club in the article instead of Derry City Football Club? --Vintagekits (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought my source called it Londonderry FC, it actually calls it Derry City. Right, I suppose it ought to be changed then. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It could look to some, not I of course, that you are just trying to cram the word "Londonderry" into the article as many times as you can! Where is your evidemce for your asertion about the mayorship.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I gathered it was, until 1983, always known as Mayor of Londonderry...with ref. to our chap; Burke's Peerage, The McCorkell Line. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, I hardly call using it twice "cramming"! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am yet to see evidence that the Mayor of that sity is anything but the Mayor of Londonderry. The Charter says Londonderry, so that is what the Mayor is called now.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Naturally I agree. The city's officially called Londonderry; Wikipedia, of course, knows better! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Theres a broader point though in that Cities and towns with a charter have mayors, not councils. Therefore whatever the council is called the office is still Mayor of Londonderry.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Robin Kinahan

"Following the war he entered politics as councillor for Oldpark Belfast" Can you check this? I strongly doubt it as there was no such ward. What is currently Oldpark D.E.A. would have been part of Dock, Clifton and Shankill wards then. Valenciano (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that came straight from the Obituary which is referenced, I think it was the Independent.--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sir William Whitla

Any ideas? Seems to have been important to QUB, but no article here.....Traditional unionist (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There must be one! I presume he was dead by the time your building was opened, ~~mid 70s~~ 1949!?--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sir William and Lady Whitla were childless, and they were wealthy." Great line. hah. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Begun; William Whitla --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job! I'd never have found that.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wessex Children

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, D B D 16:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes

You have e-mail. -- Avi (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal WikiProject and template standardization

Hi Counter Revolutionary, I would your input on two discussions I have initiated at WikiProject Biography/Royalty, one on template standardization and one on name of the WikiProject and redirects to it. Thanks in advance! Charles 04:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Will try to give it a look in! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Counter-revolutionary you have just broken this rule with your edit to the Margaret Thatcher article. I would ask you to please undo your edit and I will take it no further. Thank you. - Galloglass 08:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I couldn't possibly do that. Thank you for the thought though. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I will have to take it further as we are all bound by the rules. - Galloglass 09:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness to Counter Revolutionary, he's rightTraditional unionist (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

C'mon it's Christmas let him off and he is quite right. Giano (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've broken the rule, but her legal title is "The Baroness Thatcher", it's not an honourary siffix! Merry Christmas to all, Marley was dead...--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Prime Ministers

Was that a request to work together to abolish the titles of Prime Ministers being included in their info boxes, or are you telling me there needs to be a change?? PoliceChief (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a request to include titles (and only titles, none of this 'Margaret Thatcher' nonsense), which I think you're in favour of. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For your information, I am more in favour of including the life peerages and titles of politicians.. i.e. The Baroness Thatcher & The Lord Wilson; other users persist in editing and changing back to Margaret Thatcher and Lord Wilson, and including their life peerages as Honorfic Suffixes.. as you point out..!!!! PoliceChief (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And for your information again.. in the past 3 weeks I haven't edited Margaret Thatcher's article.. and other users persist in converting back from "The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher" to ' The Right Honourable Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven LG OM PC".. and this is not me, but users like User:Galloglass...!! PoliceChief (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes having peoples actual names in their info boxes are always a complete nonsense.... Deary deary me! Oh and merry Christmas to everyone, even Giano ;-) - Galloglass 20:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We should have their correct form of address at present or time of death! For instance, Harold Stockton always called himself Stockton after he received his Earldom, but his article doesn't point this out. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with including their titles but don't you think excluding their actual name as well is going a bit far? Btw when did you aquire Giano as a fan? - Galloglass 20:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

But the first line gives their name. Don't you think there's room for their full, correct and legal form of address to be noted? I really don't think Giano is any fan of mine! hah! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree there’s room for their full title, but don't you agree that there is also room for their name in what's after all an info box. Oh and if Giano was agreeing with me on anything, even the sun rising in the east, then I'd want to go and check that it really didn't rise in the west after all! :-D Cheers - Galloglass 20:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

But at the moment the correct form of address isn't being included! Quite likewise on the Giano point!--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose that for politicians, if they hold a life peerage, that should be included in the second line of the info box; their real name can be found through reading of the article.. so for example, "The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM ,PC" would be used as opposed to how many currently form the info box as "The Right Honourable Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, LG OM PC" PoliceChief (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Equally you can find their title by reading the article. - Galloglass 21:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You write; "The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM ,PC" would be used as opposed to how many currently form the info box as "The Right Honourable Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, LG OM PC"...I agree, and that's how I originally had it!! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is most of the rest of us think the name should be in there too. - Galloglass 21:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not; Margaret Thatcher <new line> The Rt. Hon. The Baroness.... and Harold MacMillan <new line> The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Stockton...?--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds workable as a starting point but you are going to have to persuade a good number of people. What I'd suggest is creating a mock-up of how it would look on the Margaret Thatcher discussion page and go forward from there. - Galloglass 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

C-R asks "Why not; Margaret Thatcher <new line> The Rt. Hon. The Baroness.... and Harold MacMillan <new line> The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Stockton..." ... and I say no reason at all why not. Per ,y comment on Thatcher's talk page, it seems to me to be bizarre to remove from the infobox any mention of the name by which the person was known when they did the job for which they are best known. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already mentioned as the article title. Infoboxes are meant to show different things to article titles, and right now she is not "Margaret Thatcher", she is "The Baroness Thatcher". Proteus (Talk) 14:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

CR: It's nice to see someone else actually understands how things work! Proteus (Talk) 14:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Likewise! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

C-R I have just reverted the one to get your attention. Itb would be far better if you discussed this and reached a concensus rather than this constant edit warring by with you and 2 others are trying remove names from the boxes. You know where the discussion is, its on the one PM you have not removed the name of.... - Galloglass 13:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Sarawaks

I do note that long ago you raised the matter of naming on at least one talk page; so I did not mean to accuse you of acting unilaterally without discussion. I have a horror, however, of people using Wikipedia to change the way young people think about subjects (one often sees this with some of the nationalist editors who want articles renamed to a non-English form). I do recognise the argument that these individuals "should" be called by their reign-names - the problem is that they just aren't. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely young people should learn correctly, why should we offer the misguided impression that during his reign he was known as "Charles V. Brooke", or the such, he was Rajah Vyner. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Banner

Why did you revert this as it was a fix to display the images properly.--Padraig (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, thought someone had made a mistake in adding an extra ]] on the end. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI

That ref I found for the death of Prince Pedro Gastão of Orléans-Braganza was in Portuguese, not Spanish. Hope you are having a nice Christmas break. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa! Will change it if it hasn't been already. Yes, merry Christmas and happy new year too! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unionism

Answered your question on my talkpage, ok.--Padraig (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

45px	This article is within the scope of the Unionism WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Unionism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This user is a member of WikiProject Unionism in Ireland.

Penelope Hobhouse

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Penelope Hobhouse, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Penelope Hobhouse. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the prod, given that I have added information which further asserts notability. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For now, I'll put on an unreferenced tag. I know they're ugly, but who knows what nice sourcing people can come up with. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, there's plenty of refs, I just couldn't be bothered adding them as referencing is very tedious! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather. Unfortunately, they are both tedious, and core policy. Assertion of notability is fine now though, and as a eventualist my firm believe is that all else follows. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Of course she is notable. Even I have heard of her and her blasted, expensive to create boarders, just try owning one faithfully re-produced. The lupins overtake everything, and swamp the peonies (which doesn't matter as they won't flower) the delphiniums get covered in a horrible fly, and the creeping geraniums are finished before summer properly begins and one spends the rest of the summer being berated by one's wife for not watering the parched dying patch properly. Now what was the name of the other woman like her, bossy old trout whose former house and garden is now rather a nice restaurant just outside Bath? I've been there it is very good. Giano (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Norman Stronge

Could you reference that? You seem better at that sort of thing than me!Traditional unionist (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lord Carson.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lord Carson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

James Kilfedder

I see they are starting again on this, can the NPOV tag be removed from this now.--Padraig (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think so, so long as it doesn't flare up. We've certainly reached a consensus on the page. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just passing......I see there is another gigantic battle going on over VK. I guarantee you if it had been us we would have been permanently banned long ago. So how does he always manage to remain? Regards, David Lauder (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is he a Mason? hahah! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)