User talk:Lord Emsworth/Archive 4
European Commission President
[edit]Hi. I see you have added a template to the "European Commission President" pages, nice work! I added a Period parameter, as it's a pretty useful thing to have. However, it seems that mediawiki has a problem with | in templates, see Walter Hallstein for instance, where it has to say "Jean Rey (politician)" instead of just "Jean Rey". This has been reported as a bug however, and hopefully fixed. See under m:MediaWiki 1.3 comments and bug reports section "Markup_Precedence_and_template_syntax". --Vikingstad 22:56, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
AP image?
[edit]Where are you getting the information about that image? Who took it? What is the license? anthony (see warning)
The information you added said that it was AP, linked to a derivative of the work in question, didn't give any information about who took it or of the license. anthony (see warning)
Top-notch
[edit]Love the top-notch new political articles. And the speed, good heavens! The mind boggles. The jaw drops. Don't mind my hard-nosedness on FAC; most people think their own writing is NPOV genius and as such week-old nominations should face a canonical bit of h.-n. before acceptance. +sj+ 00:07, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Input on Earl of Lucan
[edit]Your input is requested on Talk:Earl of Lucan Mintguy (T) 20:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I see you've been going through pages on counts of Barcelona, changing the format of the succession box. In the case of Ramon Berenguer III this resulted in dropping the Counts of Provence line altogether. Could you please somehow put it back in the format you seem to be favouring or I'll have to revert to the March, 14 revision. Thanks --apoivre 07:57, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Same goes for William III of the Netherlands, who lost the Grand Duke of Luxembourg part of the box. -- Jao 10:02, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dear Emsworth, i have congratulate you for your patience of substituting all those boxes. They are indeed nicer and i have saved the template in order to use it in other ducal-articles i may create. Cheers, Muriel G 08:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've made the changes to this page as requested. Morwen - Talk 22:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Extinct Peerages
[edit]Do we have a table listing extinct peerages of Great Britain, England, etc. Or are they going on the regular tables. The text on the tables says "comprises all peerages" yet at least two articles created today are not on them. (Viscount Sackville, Earl of Middlesex) Rmhermen 14:18, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
Peerages again
[edit]My Lord, I draw your attention to Lord St John of Fawsley, which is incorrectly titled. It seems to have been created by a new User. Perhaps you could politely explain the peerage conventions to him. Adam 00:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have made the changes re: The Right Honourable and also tabulated the Republic of Ireland cities. I would be gratified if you could have a look? Thanks, Morwen - Talk 20:05, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"-ise" vs. "-ize"
[edit]Regardless of what you, or even the OED, consider to be preferred and/or correct (and I could go on at length about how the OED considers itself a non-perscriptive tome, and so doesn't claim anything 'correct' at all), use of "-ize" is generally considered an Americanism, and, certainly, to switch to it (an action, rather than a usage, IYSWIM) can be considered... unfavourably.
Yours,
James F. (talk) 00:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Nice work expanding the article - I went through and proofread and made some additions (some rather awkwardly inserted, I fear)...not sure why that article wasn't on my watchlist, as I'd written most of the previously existing article. john k 22:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Egyptian dynasties
[edit]I see you renamed the Dynasties of Ancient Egypt to make them fit Template:Pharaoh. The standard with the names of kings & nobility is to identify ambiguous names by the country: in other words, people seeing, say, "Eighteenth dynasty" will wonder where this 18th dynasty belongs -- but "Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt" is immediately identifiable. Since I understand your reasons, I left redirects from the various simpler forms -- & hope they don't become disambiguation articles too quickly. -- llywrch 04:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There probably isn't an 18th dynasty for any other country, at least in common usage. Dynasties are more often given names names instead. But numbered dynasties do appear applied to ancient Mesopotamian cities, notably the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dynasties of Ur. Jallan 14:53, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Due only to the fact that most of the great prose you wrote has been moved to other articles, I've nominated peerage on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. But I think that the FA status could be kept if an older longish version could be pared down a bit (sub-30KB) to serve as a survey article for the whole series (with 'Main article' links below each section heading that has a full article on that sub-topic). That way people who are not interested in reading the whole series can still get a great summary of the whole topic by reading just one article. In the meantime, I think that Hereditary Peer will make a fine addition to the FA list. So I've supported that nomination. A couple other articles in the series also look featurable (which is no surprise since much of their content was once at peerage). --mav 06:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Olympic Games
[edit]Emsworth, I've gone through the remarks on Olympic Games you left at WP:FAC. I have some questions/remarks regarding these, notably on the topic of naming the French baron. Could you take a look? Thanks, Jeronimo 08:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I noticed you updated the article on these issues; does that mean your objections are now resolved? Jeronimo 10:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Earls of St Germans
[edit]Greetings. Many thanks for correcting the titles used in the various Earls of St Germans articles. One quick additional question: I thought the correct 3rd person description was 'The Earl of St Germans' and that 'Lord St Germans' was the 2nd person? Thanks, Ian Cairns 14:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Dukes of Richmond (and Lennox (and Gordon))
[edit]I notice you've been moving them to "Duke of Richmond and Lennox". I'd moved them all to "Duke of Richmond", because the Lennox title is invariably not used to refer to them. Plus, for the later Dukes, the Gordon title is used (as in "the Duke of Richmond and Gordon"), so to have those article titles include the Lennox title but not the Gordon is just weird. I'd say the simplest would be to just have the Richmond title in the article title, and list the other titles in the first line. john k 17:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne
[edit]Hi, I'd be really grateful if you could cast your eye over Wycombe Abbey School which I have just heavily edited, the available information on the ancestry of 2nd Earl of Shelburne is very contradictory, I have put in what I understand it to be, but would be grateful if you could correct, when you have time, if I have misunderstood it. Regards Giano 17:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks - I was getting a bit lost there Giano 17:54, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Coleridge
[edit]Hi, why'd you remove the fact that the Baron was the nephew of the poet? I think it's interesting to find the relationships among people of different walks of life. Cheers, Marj 19:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Olympics
[edit]I saw your objection to Olympic Games on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, but the page is listed as uncontested. I wasn't sure if I should promote it; has your objection been dealt with? Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:20, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Life peers
[edit]Hi. Can you please temporarily stop these movings whilst the matter is discussed? I strongly dispute the moving of Dennis Healey, Geoffrey Howe and Cecil Parkinson. They simply aren't referred to by their peer names at all. 80.229.39.194 14:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Why are you moving all the life peers? Has there been a policy change!? Mintguy (T) 16:04, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
We've been bantering about with changing policy for a while, nobody objected, so boldness has been been. Basically, the idea is to include the peerage title for people like Lord Falconer of Thoroton who are mostly known by their peerage title - obviously the edges are still rather rough. john k 17:10, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for the long delay, but I've been away on holiday for a fortnight. What you've changed it to seems good to me, and I agree with most of the moves you've made. (And Jeffrey Archer seems in a strange twist to be an exception to the normal way things work in that he is now normally referred to by his peerage as it allows the press to insert "the disgraced peer" before his name every time they mention him.) Proteus (Talk) 13:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hello Lord Emsworth,
I noticed the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). I believe that the page currently at Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare should be an exception, since the man is generally referred to as "Jeffrey Archer". I'm interested in your thoughts.
Cheers,
Acegikmo1 22:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hmm...he's certainly called Jeffrey Archer a lot. But he's also called "Lord Archer of West-super-Mare" a fair bit that I've seen.... john k 22:35, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Hmmm...perhaps as a compromise we should move the page to "Jeffrey Archer, the liar".
- Acegikmo1 18:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Captions
[edit]Hello sir, Ive noticed you have been reverting some of the new captions, you should check out and discuss it on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Writing_Captions if you really don't agree. --GeneralPatton 22:40, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the project! I'm sure you'll make better captions for your articles than I will ;-) The 1st Amendment looks great! -- ke4roh 15:17, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Emsworth, you've started writing really good captions. I'm very pleased by those in hereditary peer and Royal Assent, for example. 81.168.80.170 21:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
layman elected pope
[edit]You removed this sentence from papal election:
You said it was a "repetition". But I can't find the sentence in the article as it now appears. Where is it? It seems to me it should be right after the part that says a layman can be elected, since otherwise the reader might think it says an unordained layman can be pope, and that's not true. Michael Hardy 18:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- In the section "Acceptance and proclamation," it is asserted: "If he [the elected individual] is not a bishop, however, the Cardinal Dean must first ordain him a bishop before he can assume office."
That explains why I couldn't find it: it wasn't where it seemed to be needed. It does seem to me that if it's not included in the paragraph where I put it, it will lead some people to erroneously think a layman can be pope. Michael Hardy 18:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Article names for press barons
[edit]We seem to have a lack of articles on British 19th and early 20th century press barons. So, I'd like to at least start them but looking at the relevant section of our naming conventions is giving me a headache.
I wonder if you would help?
I'll try and list here what I know about people I know to be the same person but can't disentangle the correct article name for:
- Alfred Harmsworth (later Lord Northcliffe) helpful link: [1]
- Harold Harmsworth (aka Lord Rothermere? because he appears here: Viscount_Rothermere as the top entry - Viscount? Lord?... is that link in the correct naming style? Certainly appears long enough to be ;o) Useful link: [2].
Hmmm. And we already seem to have Lord Beaverbrook. Oh. I thought I was going to be writing about 4 articles, but it turns out they're all names for 2 people!
So, yes, it would be great if you could tell me the two titles I need for those articles (I can do disambiguation and redirects later). Regards, --bodnotbod 19:08, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thank you... er... my liege. I'll start on those articles some point, um, this month. Thnaks also for having that post a comment link on your page which I've now stolen to put on mine too. And, yes, I have changed the coding so that the comments (and sometimes insults) appear on my page, not yours. --bodnotbod 19:49, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
FAC page screwup
[edit]Earlier, you nominated Order of the Thistle to the FAC. In the process, the page got screwed up. I reverted and then re-added your nom. Just thought I'd let you know. →Raul654 01:47, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
By the way, re: having more than one nom at a time - the articles you nominate are always of high quality and (as a result) generate very few objections. The objections that do get generated are fixed in short order. So I really don't think you have to worry about causing too many problems with your noms - you aren't really the one I'm concerned about. →Raul654 01:50, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Bravo
[edit]
For fantastic writing. Keep it up! Exploding Boy 15:34, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Lady vs. The Lady
[edit]Here's a thing I never got with the peerage titles, and I know you're the one to ask. When should it be "The Lady" as opposed to just "Lady"? For instance, in the intro paragraph of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, she is presented as having been known as The Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, while at, again for instance, Lady Davina Windsor, there's no sight of a definite article. I haven't found anything in Courtesy title about this. Please help an ignorant Scandinavian. -- Jao 08:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- "The" should always be there, and if it isn't it's simply been missed out, and isn't a sign of some deeper pattern. (The only exception is Lady Marion Fraser (no "The"), who is not the daughter of a Duke, Marquess or Earl but is a Lady of the Order of the Thistle (all other Ladies of that Order and of the Order of the Garter have higher styles), since her style of "Lady" is equivalent to "Sir" and is not connected to the similar style of "The Lady" given to the daughters of some peers.) To make it even more complicated, the Earl Marshal and the College of Arms don't like the definite article being given to such daughters, while successive Lord Chamberlains have insisted they are entitled to it, along with courtesy peers, who are referred to in the Court Circular as, for instance, "the Lord Seymour", a practice condemned by the CoA. So, with even the experts in disagreement, there's not much hope for any of us to know for certain what's right and what's wrong. Proteus (Talk) 10:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ranulph Fiennes
[edit]Hi. I'm trying to figure out the honours afforded Sir Ranulph Fiennes, and I hoped you'd have some better honours-lists (etc.) to which you might direct me. I'm confused severally:
- it seems he was awarded an OBE in 1993 (lots of places say this, but I'd like to confirm it's true)
- I can't for the life of me find out when (and why) he was knighted (is there such a thing as an hereditary knighthood?)
- he's sometimes referred to as "Sir Ranulph Fiennes Bt OBE" - I've never heard of that "Bt" before.
Thanks! -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:54, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
U.S. Constitution
[edit]I've rewritten and expanded the Bill of Rights section, and other users have gone over the rest of the text as well; I believe we might have dealt with your objections. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks very much for your help, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:06, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
Useless fan mail
[edit]Lord Emsworth, I have been meaning to tell you for quite some time that I am an enormous fan of yours. Jimbo Wales 02:19, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My Lord
[edit]Hmm, it seems I have an "Obscure Peerage Copyediting" committee following me, composed of you and User:John Kenney... y'all seem to have edited, in turns, every article on every peer on this website -_-. And I thought I had no life....... (just kidding)
But there is a point to this -- what do I do about prefixes and suffixes. i.e. should it be The Right Honourable John Doe, 5th Duke of Whatever, KG, PC or The Rt. Hon. John Doe, 5th Duke of Whatever and not mention the post-nominals, or what? I've been a bit confused on that point. Thanks, ugen64 22:43, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Monopoly
[edit]Hi M'lud
Surely, monopoly cannot be the best-selling board game in the world, excelling chess — it might be. I don't disagree about downgrading Monopoly to 'one of' the best-selling board games, but if the Guinness Book of Records accepts it as the most played board game, it also stands a good chance of being the most sold game. Admittedly the average Monopoly game has four players whilst the average Chess game has just less than two players, but that just means that Monopoly has to outsell Chess by 2:1. Although chess has a much longer history, because of population growth and an increase in available free time, any comparison is going to boil down to which game is more popular in the western world today. Chess is often regarded as rather elitist, so I can quite believe there are more than 2x the number of Monopoly boards than chess in America today. -- Solipsist 20:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I am almost certain that chess is the most played game in the world. It would be highly difficult, if not impossible, to determine the number of chess boards sold in the world. Perhaps Guinness only counts those games under the control of individual companies. If, however, you deem fit, I would not object to reinstating the phrase "best selling game." -- Emsworth 20:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- No, I'm not that bothered, except for the general stance of avoiding weasel words. I think the objection is probably valid. Guinness isn't a terrible source of facts, but it is not one I would like to stake my life on. It could easily turn out to be like the 'Best selling book', ignoring the Bible and any other example which might be hard to count. The 'most played game' is actually most likely to be the Mancala family of games - which is cheating a little, but is basically the same game with regional dialects and most boards are home improvised rather than sold. -- Solipsist 20:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Advocation
[edit]Hi Emsworth,
In your capacity as a Members' Advocates, could I ask for your advice on handling a mini-edit war I appear to be involved in. It largely concerns User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett), who from what I can tell has been making many valued edits for quite some time but clearly has some fairly firm views when it comes to categorisation.
A couple of weeks ago, I started removing some articles from Category:Painters where it looked like they had been mis-categorised. Notably Bill Oddie, Winston Churchill, Charles, Prince of Wales and Tracey Emin, all of whom have painted but wouldn't ordinarily be considered Painters. What I hadn't realised was that it was Andy who had put these articles into Category:Painters in the first place. In particular it was unfortunate that I had started with Bill Oddie, who appears to be one of Andy's cause celebre. Most attempts to remove or change the categorisations on these articles have been quickly reverted.
As much as anything, the dispute appears to be a problem with agreeing on the scope of categorisation. I'm clearly taking a narrower view of people who might be classed as a Painter than Andy does.
The discussion starts at;
Once I realised the problem really concerned the nature of classification, I tried to broaden the discussion and bring in additional views at
and
although neither has generated much additional input.
It rather looks like Andy has stopped responding to any of the discussions, although he was quick to revert my latest attempts at categorisation this morning.
My question is what should I do next? I'm considering Wikipedia:Requests for comment in the 'Article content disputes' section. A previous category dispute Category talk:Birmingham, England which largely involved Andy seems may have been resolved that way. However, looking at his Talk page, he seems to have been involved in quite a few disputes and rarely gives more than rather curt replies. So perhaps 'Comment about individual users' would be more appropriate - but I can't think that personalising an issue further can help and the majority of his edits look good. -- Solipsist 13:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- From experience, I know that Andy Mabbett is a user who holds firm opinions and defends them vigorously, though not always through discussion. For example, he ignored comments on the talk page and arbitrarily reverted to his chosen version on Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, without so much as a reply to the comments of others. But at present, I advise you that your dispute with him is not personal: it only concerns a particular category. Therefore, I think that "Article content disputes" would be the correct venue for dispute resolution. "Comment about individual users" concerns general user conduct, rather than conduct relating to a specific article or category. Therefore, it would be, in my opinion, inappropriate to use the individual users section. If Mabbett still ignores consensus, one may personalise the dispute, moving either to "Comment about individual users" or to Mediation. -- Emsworth 14:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll give it another day to await replies, then try "Article content disputes". -- Solipsist 14:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Derry/Londonderry
[edit]I would very much like to know why you have chosen to reopen a contentious issue by moving Derry to Londonderry? The situation until recently was a sensible compromise, having Londonderry for the county, and Derry for the city.
Please note that use of EITHER name is not NPOV. Saying that Londonderry is official actually just makes it worse. Besides - Derry is the official name in the Republic - it's what on the road signs, it's what's used in government policies. Derry is the name used by the city itself for the city council, airport, and most other purposes. The solution previously was fine, as the county name doesn't particularly have the name Derry attached to it except by nationalists.
Who are you to take such unilateral actions?
zoney ███ talk 19:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Exactly - the previous situation was to keep everyone (reasonably) happy. The official situation is quite clear from the articles. There are plenty of situations in Wikipedia where "official" terms are not used in order to remain reasonably balanced. Try enforcing the official plural for "euro" at Euro. While you're at it, please move Republic of Ireland to Ireland. The former is only an official description of our state by an act of parliament. The latter is the State's official title. Your reasoning is absurd, and can lead only to the conclusion that your personal preference is to use the term "Londonderry". zoney ███ talk 20:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The article should be reverted to "Derry" this decision was made previously after a similar dispute and was a closed issue, see Talk:Londonderry - we cannot reopen these types of issues every six months - either that or wikipedia would come to a halt. The article can be used to make it quite clear as to the official title of the city. Djegan 20:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Having a bias towards one side or the other does not make one ineligible to participate in achieving compromise. I am not, for example, attempting to insist on removing all reference to Londonderry, something that believe me, from my POV, I would very much like. I make no apologies for standing up for my views, but I entirely support the NPOV policies here, and attempt merely to ensure balance, including my POV. The whole NPOV thing would collapse were it not for those standing up for their side! (Most articles would be written from the US POV if non-US wikipedians just shut up!) zoney ███ talk 20:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Cricket
[edit]Please could you delete the Cricket/temp page and its corresponding talk page. Work on it is over. Thanks [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:49, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your additions - I've removed my objections from WP:FAC (you probably noticed that I changed a few minor things in the text myself).
You reverted some of the links I addded to dates to avoid more than one link per article. I think house style is (contrary to the usual position for other links) for all dates to be linked so they can be formatted according to personal preference - so 16 August or August 16 would both display as "16 August" or "August 16" according to personal preference. (I see you've also reverted the changes I made to Prince-elector; again, I think "'n'th century" is house style but I won't quibble.) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Have you had had a chance to reconsider your objections to speed of light? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't mind all that much (though I find the numeric forms a little easier to read), but what's with changing all the 15th, 16th etc centuries to their word forms? — OwenBlacker 18:48, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
- I've replied on my Talk: page, though feel free to move it all here, if you prefer to keep it all together. — OwenBlacker 19:17, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
Arbitration proceeding
[edit]Thanks for your support on the Rex071404 arbitration. We had an unusually large number of people joining in the request for a temporary injunction, which may have been part of what persuaded the ArbCom to take that step. (I've been told they don't often do it.) For that reason, I'm glad to see more people joining in the underlying request. Your intervention may be especially valuable because you came into the dispute after it had been rumbling for a while. Your evaluation is that of someone who hasn't been involved in the revert wars or in the sometimes acrimonious exchanges with Rex, like the rest of us. Instead, you've noted, as an unbiased observer, where the problems came from. Thanks again! JamesMLane 03:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Re: Rex071404 arbitration
[edit]If you were present for the dialog which led up to the "baby Jesus" taunt, you would not be so quick to dismiss out of hand that it was intended as anti-Christian bigotry.
Even so, the editor who posted that quip now tries to say that it was a "joke".
But no, it was not a joke. A joke is intended to be funny and can reasonably be expected to be received by the target audience as such. Instead, this was a taunt which was directed at me and it was a snide one at that.
The editor who posted that taunt now says "Nevermind that I am a Christian who has taken his user name from the New Testament". I don't know what kind of Chistian Gamaliel is, but the word "Christ" means "Savior". Certainly, if Jesus is Gamaliel's savior, he would consider 1st that others who claim salvation through Him, might not find it funny to make a taunt with the name of one they revere.
While the Bible does say "Cast out the mocker and you will be free of quarrels", it does not say "make jokes and taunt people using Jesus's name".
Also, Gamaliel has yet to retract the taunt or say that he is sorry and ask for forgiveness.
Rex071404 06:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Arbitration
[edit]You are mistaken. One of the points which Gamaliel and others accuse me of, is using harsh invective. Therefore, to make sure the Aribtrators know this is not all one sided, I intend to press a charge of inter-editor misbehavior against my acccusers, where appropriate, as well. For example, one of the other editors swore at me on a talk page. Is that appropriate?
Rex071404 15:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please do not contact me about this again
[edit]You obviously have not read Gamaliel, et al's complaint against me. For if you had, you would see that they are indeed complaining about my inter-editor comments towards/to them. I am now doing the same, back to them. Why you only single me out about this is troubling. Please do not contact me with any more inquires along this line.
Rex071404 17:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Indeed I did - after you improperly interjected commentary on the Arbitration evidence page. Also, I never said don't contact me. Rather, I said don't do it with any more inquiries about the self-evident nature of the Arbitration complaint itself. Rex071404 17:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Mutt/mixed breed
[edit]Would you like to take another look at featured-article candidate Mutt (dog)? Elf | Talk 00:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
George III
[edit]Your edits on the George III have ruined this article. There is no need for a full descipriton of the style and banner, no need for a full list of titles in the introduction. You have changed the list of children from a readable table format to a long list of links.
If you want to list these things, you should do so on a seperate article.
OK, agree to keep the style and arms, although I think it looks out of place versus the text on George III himself. I think the introduction is too long and complicated versus the other Britsh monarch pages. Astrotrain