Misplaced Pages

Nursing qualifications

Your edit from List of post-nominal letters read: (remove nursing ones (there's absolutely no way "RN" can be used by a nurse, for a start - it means "Officer in the Royal Navy")). I can assure you that nurses do use the suffix RN in the United Kingdom. Please note the new list of nursing qualifications on the abbove page. 88.111.72.160 20:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. RN is used as registered nurse. I know from experience. My mother was an RN and she was never in the Royal Navy. FearÉIREANN 19:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

hey

Welcome back. You might want to keep an eye on Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. User:DreamGuy is assing around again deleting links he does not want to have, or rather ensuring that only his article is linked to the section on the Jack the Ripper rumours. A second article also discusses the topic in the context of royal myths and legends. He has been trying for months to get the other article deleted so that the only article that covers the topic is his own pet one. Every attempt he has made to get things his way has been met with silence by everyone. Even his merge attempt got a grand total of himself participating. Since all his other attempts have failed he now tries to delete any reference to the other article in the Prince Albert Victor page. FearÉIREANN 19:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

You might want to keep an eye on Constantine II of Greece. Adam Carr for some reason is determined to rewrite it to push his POV without any pretence at NPOV. I am a bit disappointed in Adam. FearÉIREANN\ 00:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Re-using life peerage titles

I guess I don't need to tell you I've added that reference as I'm sure you've already seen it! --JRawle 18:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Emma Watson

Please explain your edits. The "city, county, country" (or variants) is the pattern of every article I've worked on... RadioKirk 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

(a) It's not usual Misplaced Pages style (I don't know what type of articles you've been working on); (b) it's not the usual way of writing place names in the UK; and (c) it puts pretty irrelevant information in far too prominent a position (where someone was born may be worth mentioning somewhere, but certainly not straight after their name and date of birth, and before any information about who they are or why they are famous). Proteus (Talk) 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have to respectfully disagree; Misplaced Pages style or otherwise (and even that varies hugely, Manual or otherwise), classic encyclopedia style leads with born date and place (and, when applicable, died date and place) as seen here. RadioKirk 00:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies). Proteus (Talk) 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Misplaced Pages articles should heed these rules." Despite the fact that this really means, "we're making this up as we go," I guess I can live with the new convention. However, I would still argue that viewers may find county, state, borough, country, etc., interesting and that it is encyclopedic. RadioKirk 00:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No one's stopping you adding that information — it merely doesn't go at the very beginning. Proteus (Talk) 00:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright... and, thanks for the heads-up. RadioKirk 00:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

We = Misplaced Pages ?

If your going to say we - wikipedia please cite what policy you are refering to. I have never seen a policy on the use of postnominal letters in bio articles and I maintain that the use of academic postnominals for academemics is advisable Michael Drew 20:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The beauty of wikipedia is that practice changes over time. When something is appropriate to a encyclopedia page it should be included. Pearson was Chancellor of Carleton University where he also tought. This makes him an academic. Like I said when I made the edit it wouldn't be appropriate to use academic postnoms on Ben Affleck's page but for Pearson or other academics like (I am using this example just because it comes to mind - I don't actually think his "theories" hold any water)

J. Philippe Rushton, or other academics who have had a profound effect like for example John Kenneth Galbraith it is entirely appropriate.

I dont mean to offend or make wild accusation but it seems like your following me around wikipedia ! Michael Drew 04:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Peerage question

I see we have a few articles about peerages like Viscount Whitelaw, which only ever had one holder. Do you think this make sense? Morwen - Talk 18:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. If I spot any more I'll probably just make a category for them and then someone who wants (and knows the subject) can decide whether to shoot them or not. Morwen - Talk 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A vote has been called to rename Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia to Aleksandar Karađorđević. The renamers have at least stopped constant unilateral renaming (at last!). Please come, express your opinion and vote. Slán. FearÉIREANN\ 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Rt Hon

Did you even bother to read my reasons? Don't just revert things without the courtesy of saying why. "Perfectly correct" is an assertion, not an explanation. JackofOz 00:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

An apology is in order. I've now checked out what you say about Rt Hon and PC and it turns out you are entirely correct. Turns out you know something after all! Seriously, I'll chalk this up to experience. And next time you correct me, I'll pay more attention. Thanks. --Irishtimes 13:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've checked in my Debrett's, and it seems that "the Right Honourable" is treated differently from "the Honourable", which I didn't realize. On page 219 there's an example that reads "The Reverend the Hon John Brown", so I assumed the same was true for "the Right Honourable". But on page 220 we have "The Most Reverend and Right Hon the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury/York".

Date Formats

Proteus, it's not necessary to change the order of day and month in a date, as it will always appear in the preferred format of the reader. Cheers JackofOz 23:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Patronising you, or anybody, is the last thing on my mind, Proteus. I apologise if that was what come through. I was simply trying to be helpful and friendly, in the same way that others have helped me in the past by making useful suggestions about things that I may not have been aware of. Civility is something I try to practise at all times, and I'm not one for holding grudges about past disagreements. Our Wiki-relationship seems to have got off on the wrong foot, but I sincerely hope that it will be a positive and harmonious one despite that.

About Beecham's places of birth and death:

• You're dead right that the introduction should show the dates, but not the places.
• However, the Style guide also says the following: "Locations should be included in the biography portion of the body article. For example, "(February 12, 1809 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England – April 19, 1882 in Downe, Kent, England)" should be separated to "(February 12, 1809–April 19, 1882) ... He was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England ... He died in Downe, Kent, England". "
• By removing the St Helens and London information from Beecham's introduction, but not following through and putting it where it belongs in the main text, you've risked losing that information altogether. Leave it to me, I'll fix it. Cheers JackofOz 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi mate,

You may remember the war on styles that was waged some time ago and the eventual compromise reached which meant that styles (Holiness, Majesty, Royal Highness, etc) are no longer used at the start in royalty articles. A series of templates were created to enable users to warn other users who attempt to reinsert styles into articles that that is no longer WP policy. However a user who is trying to get a whole series of templates deleted has nominated them on the WP:TFD for deletion. I am thoroughly fed up having to defend necessary templates from the minority of deletion police on WP who seem to act as a group: one nominates, then the rest all vote to agree with them. All help to defend the necessary templates in the styles series gratefully received. Thanks. FearÉIREANN\ 19:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Churchill

Hmm, did you revert back my edit on Churchill? May I ask why? --Anittas 11:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you didn't revert my changes; you just added a hyphen to his name - something I had nothing to do with. Why did you then say that you reverted the article, when in fact, you didn't? Weird... --Anittas 11:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cool. NP. --Anittas 11:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR notice

Please note that you performed three reverts at Glenys Kinnock in 24 hours (hist). That you used the admin rollback button, which is meant to be used against vandalism only, does not help. Please refrain from this kind of actions in the future. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And please note that while your third revert was a bit different than the other two, they are to be grouped together because each time you undid the removal of the word "Baroness" which seesm to be the key of the dispute. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Your recent response at Talk:Glenys Kinnock was a tiny bit too strong for my taste. I don't feel inclined to take it further but I just wanted to let you know that some other editors might respond to the same comments by making a complaint. David | Talk 21:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

I'm sorry to see you go, Proteus. I sympathise completely. We seem to send too much time in here explaining the bleeding obvious to the those who have little grasp of fact but a conviction of their own infallibility. I've spent the last few days debating whether to quit Misplaced Pages also. Sometimes it feels as though it is not worth the effort anymore. Quality is being destroyed by ignorance, rampant deletionism, and far too many fools. Many of thebest contributors have just given up on the project in frustration. Take care and thanks for all the contributions. FearÉIREANN\ 00:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That is no excuse horever to use administrator's privileges (like the rollback button) in matters you disagree about. I counted at least 19 admin rollbacks to well-meaning edits by a large chuck of users who do not agree with Proteus's terminology/spelling. That is abuse administrator privileges.

And calling people who disagree with you "idiots" and the like, definitely speaks more about one's own character than that of your opponents.

PS I am an uninvolved party, it was today I stumbled unto this user and never encountered him on Misplaced Pages. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Jtdirl. I find that my willingness to edit here comes and goes depending on my mood. Lately I've just kept my head down and edited minor politicians—stuff where no one gets in your way. I wish you weren't leaving, but I understand why. If you do decide to come back, I trust I'll be here to welcome you. Best regards, Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

moved from user page

Maybe if you learn to get along with people, and not just judge them by your own rules, you'd find this a more stimulating and less frustrating experience. My well-meaning offer of help to you was met with an incredibly rude and offensive response. I even went so far as to apologise for unintentionally patronising you, and extended the hand of friendship once more. This was met with total silence. Such behaviour we can all do without. JackofOz 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)