User talk:Surrey10: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:36, 6 January 2006

Welcome!

Hi Surrey10! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! JFW | T@lk 18:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Page moves

Please stop moving pages like this. If you continue, you are likely to be blocked from editing. Mark ¹ 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, you are completely wrong. See the recent case of Bobblewik, blocked for editing according to the MoS but against consensus. Mark ¹ 11:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

He isn't editing according to the MoS, he's completely ignoring it. My tastes have nothing to do with it. Mark ¹ 14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)." Mark ¹ 10:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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, Mark ¹ 19:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Because you have continued to make these disruptive moves, I have re-blocked you for a further 24 hours. Mark ¹ 23:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Mark ¹ 23:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Revision as of 23:33, 6 January 2006 edit Henry Flower (talk \| contribs) Administrators 16,424 edits →‎Page moves: 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. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:36, 6 January 2006 edit undo Surrey10 (talk \| contribs) 476 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 41:		Line 41:

	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. [[User:Markalexander100\|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100\|<sup>1</sup>]] 23:33, 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. [[User:Markalexander100\|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100\|<sup>1</sup>]] 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? --[[User:Surrey10\|Surrey10]] 23:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)