Hello, DBD! I need your help around Catherine of Aragon. User:Chloe2kaii7 keeps inserting misleading and unnecessary lines which also make the article look horrible. It's impossible to convince her to stop. Two users are not enough to stop her. Please take a look at the article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In tables it is okay to repeat. Since people use a table rather than reading it, they are not likely to know where to find the linked version of an office because they won't have read the whole thing. If we don't link Lord Phillips, how would someone find the first link? If we do not link Phillips, it's hard to justify linking Bingham. Since the distance between repetitions is going to be irregular, it is hard to come up with a consistent rule (like once every four references) that will actually make sense. The distraction factor isn't there either. It is awkward to read text that constantly jumps between black and blue. Tables aren't read in paragraphs, so the colour differences aren't jarring. I figured just repeating the link each time was the most logical.
As far as L J Surname v. Sir/Dame Forename Sirname, I have generally followed this list and the article names. News accounts usually use the latter form, too. Moreover, it gives more info about who this is. I didn't quite know what to do about the Scottish judges, which the PCO's list calls "Lady X".
With regard to shortening "Lord of Appeal in Ordinary" to "Law Lord" and the like, I was trying to avoid a recent fight I saw elsewhere, but I was being stupid. -Rrius (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but just to be clear we are not using the extra names used by the judge list (eg, the Chancellor of the High Court is Andrew Morritt, not Robert or Robert Andrew Morritt), right? -Rrius (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case something is said about Rt Hon, I'd say the justification for leaving those is that someone can be part of Cabinet without taking the title initially, but upon being sworn-in to Cabinet, they immediately take the PC suffix. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DBD; if you haven't noticed it already, I want to draw your attention to an amendment I made at the above mentioned RfC/U since you posted your comments there. As I was reminded to make the addition after reading your words, what I added may be pertinent to you. --G2bambino (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rfcu
No, I won't be back. I cannot handle the stress of trying to deal with him. He's done it before, he's done it to me now. Bullies always win. Do keep in touch, but please do not ask me to comment on or be involved with any articles that he touches. [ roux ] [x]21:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Princes of Ireland, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Princes of Ireland has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Princes of Ireland, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was also meant semi-facetiously. I go temporarily deaf blind on hearing reading rude words! :) Indeed I did share the sentiments of your comment. I don't wish to lose either G2 or Roux as an editor... Regards, --Cameron*13:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse that comment. The condemnation in your message was well written, clearly heartfelt, and told the story powerfully. The "I'll get you blocked" just detracted from it, and wasn't necessary, because a block was already in the offing. Mayalld (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you didn't, and that the statement can be read as "I will still be here to watch when you are blocked". Either way, it detracts from the statement, and allows you to be cast as the bad guy. Getting yourself cast as the bad guy doesn't help to get the real bad guys dealt with. Mayalld (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does not violate Wikipedia:Spoiler its not a problem if people who read the article don't have access to Digital TV. If they want to find for themselves then they don't read the article MattParker 119 (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2008
DBD, the burden of discussion lies with those introducing changes. There was nothing wrong with what you did, but now you know there is opposition, I'll hope you'll stop and discuss. This needs nothing more than more changes to the British monarch template so there's no reason for any bad humour or edit-warring to result. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the de facto scope creep here, a while back, and no explanations were forthcoming. The scope, it says, is "full members of the royal family ... since the ascension of George I". Not Alexander III of Scotland then. Angus McLellan(Talk)20:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Meanwhile, Harry's house is stormed and he is arrested. Richard Dolby, Director-General of MI5, grills him for information but Harry insists he has been set up by ex-MI5 officer Bernard Qualtrough. Dolby remains unconvinced and sends in a brutal interrogator." 62.49.20.179 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
