User talk:Mackensen/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

The Eye

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

Yeah, that RfAr is completely absurd. And I'm a bit offended I wasn't included. At any rate, it seems headed for well-deserved rejection, so there's not so much to say about it. john k 01:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sir George Young

I'd noticed that it was, but wasn't clear why - particularly when there are no titles or other information that would make the division serve a purpose (e.g. labelling one box as offices of state and the second as peerages and hereditary honours). Do you know where the custom comes from - and where the clearest way forward could be for it to be most productively discussed? Mpntod 19:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schlieffen Plan

The contents of the article do not reflect the considerable debate among scholars regarding Moltke, Schlieffen, and the "Schlieffen Plan." There's doubt now about the viability of the Plan, whether Schlieffen meant it as a war plan, and as to just what Moltke was executing in August of 1914. I've placed the disputed tag on the article to reflect this, but I do intend to engage in re-write (see e.g. Helmuth Johann Ludwig von Moltke) Criticism welcome and appreciated. Mackensen 02:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, the best laid plans. The article stills needs to be corrected (or the dispute tag removed). Still interested? Cheers, -Willmcw 01:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to accept your offer and remove the dispute tag. I hate to see them lingering. May I suggest that if you can take a quick pass and remove any egregious errors then that might improve the accuracy quickly. An irony of veracity is that a vague assertion is more accurate than an improperly precise fact. Anyway, the Schlieffen Plan is an important issue in history and we should have the best possible article. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Gdansk

I'm not disrupting Wikipedia nor am I proving any point. I'm merely enforcing the Talk:Gdansk/Vote. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Halibutt for my explanation. If you wish to question the outcome of the voting, you may do so on the relevant discussion page. Halibu tt 17:07, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Please ask me on a case by case basis and I'll be happy to answer your doubts. Also, the Talk:Gdansk/Vote does not mention the need to find a proof that these German cities were ever widely known outside of "Poland" by Polish names nor the need to find similar proofs for the German names of Polish cities. Halibu tt 17:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but your understanding of the vote has nothing to do with it. For me the matter is pretty clear, and so was it to a number of other contributors, who for instance, added the names to places that had been under German rule for exactly 5 years. After a lengthy discussion with many wikipedians, including admins User:Chris 73 and User:John Kenney, I simply decide to adopt their interpretation. If you believe that their interpretation is wrong, you might want to contact them personally.

As to the proofs: indeed, the need to prove that there is a Polish trace in the history of the said cities is mine. If you question that in case of some places, then please be so kind as to ask me specifically. Halibu tt 17:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Please be so kind as to stop your revert war. Otherwise I'd be forced to ask for admin protection of all pages affected by the revert war you're starting. Which is definitely not what wikipedia needs. Halibu tt 17:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I proved on the Talk:Dresden page that the rule clearly applies there. Please stop your reverts. Halibu tt 18:04, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain yourself from disrupting wikipedia. If you have any problems with the article on Dresden or the vote, you can refer to the respective talk pages. You don't have to start reveret wars. Really. Halibu tt 14:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Might interest you

User:SimonP is up to his old tricks over templates and categories. He has now proposed deleting Template:Crowns on the template for deletion page.[1] Going by his past antics on Category:Westminster System[2] and Template:Commonwealth Realms [3] he's trying to delete a template that pulls all the articles on the topic together, then he'll start subcategorising all the articles and we'll end up with a complicated, user-unfriendly mess of a category. Your opinions and observations would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 21:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gdansk/Danzig edit wars

Thanks for reverting Amber Room. I see you got some other of Space Cadet (talk · contribs) silliness - he has gone into a Danzig->Gdansk revert frenzy, even on pages where it's manifestly silly, like Johann Wilhelm von Archenholz (don't think you got that one yet). Noel (talk) 04:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, now that I'm 'contaminated' (because I had the temerity to add some information to the Amber Room article - I wish I'd never added the blasted information about those other carvers to that page, because now I'm 'involved' in the whole Gdansk/Danzig thing - if I knew then what would happen, I never would have touched the damn thing), I'd be happy to help out, if I have time (I'm way behind on my WP:AN archiving as a result of this tempest in a teacup). You're right it's a mess; as I said to John K, how stupid is it that an article about the Amber Room has to say "Gdansk" instead of "Danzig"? Every English-language history book I own which talks about the Baltic region in the 1700's calls it Danzig. Pfui. Noel (talk) 05:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 14:45, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peers

I would suggest that we do highest title held. If someone holds several titles of the same rank in different peerages, he should be in both categories (as with the Dukes of Richmond, Lennox, and Gordon, for instance). I would suggest that Scottish and Irish peers who have lower titles that get them seats in the House of Lords can probably be in both categories, but that it's silly to have, say, Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of Great Britain and Category:Earls in the Peerage of England for Lord Northampton. BTW, I'm working on Category:Earls in the Peerage of England, so don't mess with that - I've got a ton of articles on English earls currently on my queue. john k 16:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, don't you think we could just have Category:Lords of Parliament, since there's no other kind? For example, I created Category:Earls, since all Earls are British. john k 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking that, perhaps, the way to deal with titles in multiple peerages are to list them in cases where the person sat in a parliament by virtue of a lesser title. Thus, all Scottish peers who had English, GB, or UK titles and served for some period before 1963; all Irish peers with English, GB, or UK titles, as before. But also English, GB, UK peers who served in the Scottish or (more usually) Irish parliament by virtue of a lesser title. I am thinking, for instance, of Richard, Duke of York, who was Earl of Ulster in Ireland. There are other examples. That way, we don't need to include recent Scottish peers who've succeeded since 1963, since their lesser British titles are of equal irrelevance to their lesser Scottish titles... What do you think? john k 02:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Graduation

I see congratulations are in order! Well done! Proteus (Talk) 20:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crypt Fiend vfd

Hiya Mackensen, you created a double-redirect when you carried out the VfD for this article - just a heads up to watch for this in future. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 23:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck?

Don't you think the article should mention 'realpolitik' somewhere? I tried putting it in when I realized there was no mention. Although an inappropriate place, there was no where else to put it.

[edit] Naming

Hugh Fraser, Baronet of Allander - first of all, there are references to "Lord Fraser," and he was in Category:Peers, so the issue's kinda murky, but do baronets have "baronet of whatever" in their article titles? I believe you were the one that created List of baronetcies, so I decided to ask you. :) – ugen64 00:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, another strange case. Incidentally, we're almost down to 100 articles in Category:Peers :) – ugen64 00:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been putting suo jure peeresses in the category of their male equivalents, although it seems inappropriate. We could perhaps create Category:Suo jure Marchionesses in the Peerage of England, and so forth, as subcategories of the male equivalent, to isolate it a bit, but that seems kind of silly. john k 03:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jacobite peers

Yes, I would agree to some sort of category on Jacobite peerages. john k 23:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Way to re-nominate something for deletion?

Is there a way to re-nominate something for deletion? Spotteddogsdotorg 00:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Mar

I'm inclined to follow Cracroft's ("Countess of Mar (30th in line)") and Burke's ("THE COUNTESS OF MAR, 30th holder of the title"), especially since both the former and Rayment actually list all the holders. On top of that, I haven't seen anyone provide information on who the mysterious extra Earl actually is. Proteus (Talk) 11:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian Bank

Haha, cool, cool. What's life without humour. ;) - Jacen Aratan 21:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blizzard (comics)

It's a copyright violation from [4]. JamesBurns 04:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] three revert rule

you are wrong see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR Geni 12:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] There was no request to protect Fidel Castro

Protecting because of one intransigent editor is unfair to all.--Silverback 13:16, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I meant 172 of course, he has a history as an apologist for authoritarian rulers. Just look at the benign praise in the introductory paragraph for a dictator that shoots people who trying to escape his dominion.

Although no request is necessary and you can use the admin powers arbitrarily, you should exercise this public trust with restraint. --Silverback 13:24, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am telling you that it doesn't condemn Castro strongly enough. Giving Castro credit for what he achieves using captive labor is obscene. Trey's editing on other pages is irrelevant, to protection of Fidel Castro. The issues on other pages should have been dealt with there, hopefully he will allow sourced criticisms of conservative statesmen. And yes, I believe in severely judging the use of admin powers, it goes to some peoples heads. 172 wasn't able to handle it. The admin powers are a public trust that should only be used in service of the community and not push a POV.--Silverback 13:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I understand NPOV. You state that we aren't here to decide if Castro "deserves" anything. The article as stated "gives" Castro credit without sourcing it. Surely, someone here decided he "deserves" that. If you can't keep your opinions on the content dispute independent of your decision making regarding use of your admin powers, you should turn the handling of such articles over to a neutral admin.--Silverback 14:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Budapest Stock Exchange

Hi! With all due respect, the sentence at Budapest Stock Exchange is not an article but a predicate nominative. It should have been speedied under criterion number four. As it stands, it's nothing more than an orphan and likely to remain that way. Best, 71.102.76.186 28 June 2005 05:08 (UTC)

Sems the wiki keeps logging me off. This is User:Lucky 6.9, by the way. I've expanded this a bit...which is what the original poster should have done. Oh, well...fixed now. Lucky 6.9 via 71.102.76.186 28 June 2005 05:21 (UTC)

I dunno, calling this a substub as it was is pretty generous. :) I only wish the guy who first wrote it would have taken the time to do more with it. These teeny tiny circular arguments just take up more space than they're worth. It basically said that the Budapest Stock Exchange was a stock exchange in Budapest. Ya think? :)) Anyway, thanks for the update. See ya! - Lucky 6.9 28 June 2005 21:40 (UTC)

[edit] Fidel Castro protection

Hey, I just wanted to know why you switched back to the unsourced, biased version before protecting the page. Are you taking sides? Kapil 28 June 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Yes, I read the "wrong version" article, and it has nothing to do here, as you reverted first before protecting, therefore taking sides. The correct thing would have been to protect the current version of the page without first reverting, as it's understood that page protection is done for the sake of stopping revert wars and not for tatooing some person's opinion without giving other people the chance to edit it. Kapil 28 June 2005 23:11 (UTC)

I'm not talking about anyone's version being the right version, I was merely complaining that you reverted to another version first, before protecting the page. I thought you were censoring my additions. My respect. Kapil 28 June 2005 23:18 (UTC)

[edit] An article

Here you are! A shiny new article created off one of the lists I found on your userpage. :) 140.247.31.117 4 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

Outstanding. My hat is off to you! Mackensen (talk) 4 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)

[edit] Baron West

Thank you for your fix-up of the tables. My reason for listing both baronies, contrary to usual practice, was that I didn't know how to achieve the split boxes that you used...and I am still a little unclear on how you did it. In any case, you achieved what I would have done had I known how, so thank you. Robert A West 6 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

OIC. I think I used Template:PeerNavbox everywhere else. Why, out of curiosity, the special one for peers and the absence of dates? Surely that is an item of interest for encyclopedic use. Robert A West 6 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)

P.S. I'll probably get all this down about the time that I finish with my little project and am done with the peerage at least for a while. :-) Robert A West 6 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)

[edit] your opinion sought

I have re-opened the issue of the royal syub at [5]. I think having it produce a noble link is farcical. Those who did it originally were no-doubt well meaning but I don't think they really understood what they were doing. Nobility and royalty are not the same. Your opinions would be welcomed.

FearÉIREANNImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^{(caint) 7 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)}

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the support re the obnoxious comment about my sig. It was much appreciated. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 22:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] 172 and the 3RR

I gather for the 3RR page that you unblocked User:172. Am I right? Has anyone gotten around to telling him yet? Septentrionalis 19:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Dilke

I guess it's really a question of naming policy - something I'm not an expert on. I would have thought that it would be best to keep the articles under their current names (since they are precise and unambiguous) - and keep Charles Wentworth Dilke as the disambiguation page (since any of the three could be CWD. However it would make sense to redirect Charles Dilke (which normally would refer to Charles Wentworth Dilke, 2nd Baronet and have a link back to the disambig page from there. Mpntod 20:53, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:George Lucas

I'd bet money he's a sock of User:Adamwankenobi. Adam has his own army of socks and its driving me insame. Rather nerdy vandalism too... Anyways I warned Adam I'll block his goood account if he continues making socks. Respectfully, Redwolf24 22:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1st Duke of Wellington Image

Hi just to let you know the image you reverted back was replaced by the original B&W image from 'way back when' as the current colour image is marked for deletion due to copyright problems. It's better to have an old image instead of none. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Request_for_immediate_removal_of_copyright_violation.

Also is the title correct in the image frame for the Baron Packington article on:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pakington%2C_1st_Baron_Hampton. 62.252.96.16 02:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see what's up. The Pakington title is correct, although I usually don't use styles in the image frame, and I might swing over and change it. Mackensen (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] styles

Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 02:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)}

Monarchical Styles of Queen Victoria

Reference style	{{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style	{{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style	{{{altstyle}}}

Styles of Pope Paul VI


Reference style	{{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style	{{{offstyle}}}
Religious style	{{{relstyle}}}
Posthumous style	{{{deathstyle}}}

Monarchical styles of Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary

Reference style	{{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style	{{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style	{{{altstyle}}}


Monarchical Styles of James V

Reference style	{{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style	{{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style	{{{altstyle}}}

Styles of Mary McAleese, President of Ireland

Reference style	{{{dipstyle}}}
spoken style	{{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style	{{{altstyle}}}

Styles of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
{{{image}}}
Reference style	{{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style	{{{offstyle}}}

[edit] Stevertigo RfAr

I have requested arbitration against Stevertigo. Please add any comments that you believe are appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 13:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch titles

There are Dutch noble titles (not sure about a peerage as such, though). The Duke of Wellington holds the Dutch title of Prince of Waterloo, for instance. But there wouldn't have been Dutch noble titles in 1794 - the United Provinces was a Republic then - and I think you're right to be skeptical of this particular title. john k 15:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Func's RfA :)

Thank you for your vote on my RfA, Mackensen, much appreciated! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 18:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] barnonetcies

oops! i ll switch them back. wasn t aware it was about when the baronetcies were established and not when the individuals became barons. sincere apologizes, - Mayumashu 10:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] english nobility and local residency

i see you removed the Category:Natives of Lancashire for Peel, although he was born there. is the reason his social status? i m in the process of categorizing various bio articles according to the individuals county, state, province, region, city, or what-have-you of origin and wonder about the case of England where there has been social- class history. appreciate any input, - Mayumashu 10:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

okay, thanks -Mayumashu 13:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Substantive title

Hi, I noticed a number of our articles about royalty/nobility used the phrase "substantive title", but we didn't have an article on it. I did a little research on the Web (alas, my otherwise fairly amazing private library is not long on books about royalty/nobility :-), and whipped up a short article to full the void. As I'm not an expert in this area, I'd be grateful if you could take a gander at it and see if it has any howlers, needs any extra material, etc, etc. Thanks! Noel (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

[edit] Prince

Also, if you have time and energy, you might want to take a look at Prince - it's a mess. I cleaned it up a bit, but it still has a long way to go. Noel (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] royal babies

Have you visited VfD's of Prince Sigismund of Prussia, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich of Russia, Prince Felix of Denmark and Prince Nikolai of Denmark. They are different cases of royal children, whose notability is questionable (for different reasons), and theior articles tend to be full of royal nursery crap, lamentations, hollow information etc. 217.140.193.123 14:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hereditary peerages

It is simpler if all British hereditary peerages are under their full titles. or for any other reason are known "exclusively" is not the same as "commonly known". To make it non-exclusive one only needs one mention which is garanteed (otherwise we wouldnot know that they had a peerage). If not then it becomes a POV and from my point of view, there are enought of those in wikipedis already. Philip Baird Shearer 21:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AFethke

Hey, it's vandalism pure and simple and this is the first I've seen your name on the page so I doubt you're in a position to declare me in a minority. Don't remove tags that belong to you. That's it. You may delete this at your leisure.AFethke 20:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duff Cooper

hello Mackensen, how are you? well regarding your comment about Duff Cooper, this is indeed quite confusing. So sometimes they are known under their simple names, and sometimes with their noble ones? Such as Horatio Nelson I thought would have been simply kept as that, however that is not the case. I wasn´t even aware he was Viscount Nelson until I read the article. Margaret Thatcher is not kept as Baroness Margaret Thatcher, I can understand that. The reason why titles are kept I thought was because if it was hereditary, it would make sense to add the title. So after Duff Cooper, 1st Vicount Norwich, there is his son John J. Cooper, 2nd Viscount Cooper. So would it not make sense to keep the current naming and simply have redirects to the current names? with kind regards Gryffindor 21:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes this is quite confusing. I see your point. The problem seems to be, how do we judge which name the person has been most known under? Many use the Google function. I would still prefer the current version, however if most will agree that Duff Cooper is the most acceptable commonly-known version, I shall respect the majority decision obviously. But what about his son? To just keep it John Julius Cooper is not a good idea I think, because nowhere would the Viscount Norwich be reflected anymore, which became a hereditary position.. Gryffindor

13:52, August 27, 2005 (UTC)