User talk:Surrey10

Welcome!

Hello, Surrey10, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 18:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Mark Thatcher

Your move of this page is against wikipedia policiy on article naming conventions. Furthermore, your further editing of the original Mark Thatcher page has meant that a move back (without cut an paste) is now impossible! The page will have to be deleted and re-instated by an administrator. Please do not do this again. Jooler 23:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Fear not, it is now sorted. Rich Farmbrough 00:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well then Wikipedia should not have allowed the change, we are not all mind readers are we!! And please do not tell me what to do ("Please do not do this again"), you make yourself sound very rude and arrogant. --Surrey10 22:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Barony of Silkin

Perhaps if you used a more relevant source, like Burke's Peerage, you'd realise you're talking a load of rubbish. Proteus (Talk) 11:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Page moves

Please stop moving pages like this. If you continue, you are likely to be blocked from editing. Mark¹ 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. No one can be blocked just because their interpretation of the naming conventions is different to yours, and you'd do well not to go around threatening to block people just because you don't like their edits. (Your interpretation is wrong, by the way: someone's "usual name" has nothing to do with it, and the peerage title is used in the article title unless never used in real life, as the naming conventions you quote below make rather obvious.) Proteus (Talk) 10:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you are completely wrong. See the recent case of Bobblewik, blocked for editing according to the MoS but against consensus. Mark¹ 11:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can't see the difference between being blocked for disruption by making masses of bot-like edits against consensus and being blocked for editing in accordance with the MoS against the personal tastes of an Admin, then you really don't have the capacity to be in a position of authority. Proteus (Talk) 11:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

He isn't editing according to the MoS, he's completely ignoring it. My tastes have nothing to do with it. Mark¹ 14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out to you, the MoS doesn't say what you seem to think it says. None of the people from whose articles you've removed peerage titles are "exclusively referred to by personal name". In fact, to take one example, Lord Bramall is overwhelmingly referred to as such (Google gives 881 for "Edwin Bramall" versus 13,600 for "Lord Bramall"). The exception is designed for people like P. D. James and Ruth Rendell, where the personal name is overwhelmingly more common. It is not simply a question of which is more usual (and even if it were you're being so slapdash and haphazard that you aren't even applying that totally invented rule properly). Proteus (Talk) 17:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The arrogance of Wikipedia administrators is once again shown in the above comment by Mark. Would he like to explain why one should not add the peerage title of someone to that page? Surely they have a right to have their peerage mentioned? Perhaps he should explain himself a bit better?

People like Mark with their arrogant and rude attitudes only make more stop putting useful additions on Wikipedia and vandalise it instead. --Surrey10 10:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other_non-royal_names: Life peers (ie, people who have peerages awarded exclusively for their lifetime but who neither inherit it nor pass it on to anyone else)¹ use the same standard as for hereditary peers: use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name. For example: Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone (not "Quintin McGarel Hogg"), but Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher)." Mark¹ 10:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As I explained earlier I have now blocked you from editing for disruptive page moves against the consensus in the Manual of Style. Please edit constructively when the block expires. Thanks, Mark¹ 19:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the above, if you do move pages in future, please heed the notice that asks to you check for, and fix, any double redirects that you create in so doing. --Russ Blau (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how much power you think you have, but I am thinking of making an official complaint about you. Many other people have put life peers under their peerage titles, and unless they are of fame like Margaret Thatcher then they should have their peerage titles put in. If you change my edits I will report you, the naming conventions back me up. --Surrey10 22:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you have continued to make these disruptive moves, I have re-blocked you for a further 24 hours. Mark¹ 23:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again you fail to answer my point. It is only you who seems to have such a thing against me doing the correct thing with regards to these people. Answer my points, and perhaps I might then listen. But, I will only listen if other people back you up, so far no one has! And you are the disruptive one. --Surrey10 23:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of how famous the person it, it's a question of whether he is known by his title. These people are not. Mark¹ 23:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that many of these people are known by their peerage title. When Lord Merlyn-Rees died recently, it was announced that "The Lord Merlyn-Rees has died", not "Merlyn Rees has died". Any Jenny Tonge is known as Baroness Tonge, as seen when she was in the news today. All these people are known by their titles. And, you should not use your power to block just because you believe you are right, no one has yet backed you up have they? --Surrey10 23:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think that the block is unjustified, you can ask any other administrator to review it. Mark¹ 23:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I shall not bother to ask another administrator to review it, its not worth it. I have decided that Wikipedia is totally flawed, as recently discussed in an article in "The Times" newspaper, and I do not intend to use it again. It allows people with no specialist knowledge to edit pages, and then in the case of Mark, Morwen and others give them special powers, when they do not deserve them and can not use them properly. The whole website needs to be changed if it is to gain widespread public backing.

Anyway, I will give Mark the joy of winning this battle, although I am adamant he is wrong, and that I will be proven right in the near future. Indeed the fact he never answers my points shows that he has little evidence to back him up. People like Mark and User:Morwen make more vandalise this website, and this will only increase until administrators with their huge egos are got rid of completly and replaced with paid professionals who would know what they are doing.

I would like this placed on the Administrators' Noticeboard, but because of Mark's childish behaviour in blocking me I can not put it on there myself, and would appreciate it if someone else did for me. For the last time, --Surrey10 10:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)