User talk:Ugen64/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Sorry not to reply before, I've been away for the past couple of weeks. I don't have any sources for cabinet lists, but I'll dig out what I've got and get back to you later. Good work on the Clarendon Ministry. -- Gregg 21:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll have some concrete information in a few days. In the meantime, here are some general rules that might help you work out the membership:

  • The "cabinet council", which is later shortened to "cabinet", was the colloquial name for the Privy Council's Committee for Foreign Affairs. So, every member must be a PC - which means you can eliminate anyone who isn't. It is the most powerful of several PC cttees. It contains the King's top advisors, and seems to have acted and been seen as an executive of sorts. It existed before the Civil War, was resisted by Clarendon, then seems to have been in existence from 1667 onwards with just a few brief interruptions.
  • Starts out small (the 5 members of the Cabal), with membership based on personality. By the time of William III it has around 12 or 13 members and membership is linked to the need for certain government departments to be represented in key discussions. The 12/13 figure seems to hold until at least 1730, but the actual positions may not be consistent throughout.
  • Membership definitely includes the Great Officers and the Secretaries of State. It also seems to have included the Lord High Admiral and the Master-General of the Ordnance. By the 1770s it also includes the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancs and the Paymaster General.

-- Gregg 23:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, there are still plenty of knowledge gaps, but I've put together what I can at User:Gregg/Cabinet Council. -- Gregg 05:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Grunt's bureaucratship[edit]

Ugen64, I believe it was inappropriate for you to promote Grunt while the RfA dispute was going on. You had expressed an opinion on the issue and did not follow my lead in not acting at this time. I had already asked Angela to look at the issue and she wanted to give it another day. I request that you admit error in this case in promoting with only 75% support and ask Angela to reverse the bureaucratship for now. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:21, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ugen, I wrote the following to Angela:

Angela, this is gamesmanship, and I also think it is inappropriate to use IRC as a sounding board because it violates the principle of transparency in Wikipedia dealings. The practice has been that people have continued to vote and have their votes counted before the nomination is acted upon. I will further point out that Grunt did reply to my concern for three days and only replied after the deadline. You yourself wanted this to go for another day when I queried you. The inappropriate of this grows and grows. I intend to ask Ugen again to withdraw his action and will bring my first-ever RfC on Wikipedia if he doesn't. Ugen has been an inactive bureaucrat and he picked a terrible time to get active.

I again ask you to withdraw your inappropriate action. The current discussion at Adminship talk shows where sentiment lies. If you honestly felt promotion was appropriate, you should have passed the request to another bureaucrat who has been uninvolved and more active than yourself. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are broadly interpreting practice and reasoning in a much more aggressive fashion than virtually all bureaucrats, and you have been inactive in that capacity for six months. This speaks very poorly to your ability to execute those duties with impartiality, no less that appearance of impartiality. You should have thought a little about why I indicated I would not rule on Grunt's nomination without clear consensus. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Sorry, I didn't notice... -- Emsworth 22:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ugen64 de-bureaucrat[edit]

I wasn't sure where this belongs, so I'll just put it here (there's "self-de-adminship", but no "self-de-bureaucratship"). I'd officially like to ask for debureaucratship, because I am apparently "broadly interpreting" policy in an "aggressive fashion." ugen64 01:09, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Moved this here, as it doesn't belong at WP:RFA. Netoholic gave you accurate information, if you want to pursue this. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ugen. I think this was a slightly extreme reaction to the situation, but I have carried out your request. Angela. 03:25, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Angela, but honestly I understand. I've been considering giving up my status as well, simply because I don't feel confident enough on the close calls and there's not much use in having me around for the easy ones since Angela and Cecropia (and a few others) take care of them so handily. I hope you understand that my objection to your specific judgment call in this instance was not intended as a call for you to step down, nor was it an indication of a loss of confidence in you. I've made bad calls before, and I'm sure I will again. It's life. If you're upset about how I handled things, please let me know -- it's important to me that we be on good terms, since I remain convinced that you do good work here and are a real asset to Wikipedia. Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 03:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ugen, FWIW, I can't see that you did anything wrong in making Grunt a bureaucrat. You made a decision entirely in keeping with the only published policy I can find. That decision was clearly in good faith, and whilst other bureaucrats may disagree with the decision, there is absolutely no justification for the way some users have characterised it. -- Gregg 13:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Firstly, thank you for your congratulations (that was quite observant of you). As to the Earldom of Southampton, I believe that there was indeed a subsidiary title: the Barony of Wriothesley, created 1544, extinct together with the Earldom 1667. (See [1]) So, yes, Southampton was known as Lord Wriothesley. Note that even if there were no subsidiary title, he would be called Lord [Surname]. (A notable exception is the eldest son of the Earl of Lincoln, who lacks a subsidiary title—this son is called "The Honourable X Clinton," rather than "Lord Clinton," because there is already a different Baron Clinton.) -- Emsworth 22:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My nomination for adminship[edit]

Thank you for your verbose support of my nomination for adminship. :) I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 23:59, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

There should be a lot of 19th century British peer PMs already on the List of state leaders in... pages. Is there any consistent standard already in place? john k 01:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Noel Buxton[edit]

I believe that Noel Buxton changed his surname to "Noel-Buxton" when being made a peer. So yeah, presumably the same guy. The Buxtons were fairly well known, although I can't quite recall for what. john k 02:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some peers in the past have wanted to include their first name as well as their surname in their title. Garters (understandably) don't like this, and so several have taken advantage of the fact that surnames titles are always allowed (if available) by changing their surname to the title they want. Thus Noel Buxton changed his surname to Noel-Buxton so that he could become Lord Noel-Buxton, and George Brown did the same, becoming Lord George-Brown. It's alleged that Betty Boothroyd wanted to be Lady Betty-Boothroyd, but was dissuaded from this rather silly cause of action by the present Garter (who dislikes such titles even more than his predecessors). Proteus (Talk) 08:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At least we do not have too many silly titles like "Viscount Alanbrooke" (created for Field Marshal Alan Brooke). Just imagine something like "Lady Bettyboothroyd" ... -- Emsworth 01:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We won't have to put up with it much longer. The current Lord Alanbrooke was born in 1932 and has no heirs. Proteus (Talk) 10:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is rather weird, isn't it? As to why old style aristocrats so often have the double-barrelled names, usually that has to do with inheritances, doesn't it? Mr. Blackwell inherits the Smithfield estates from his grandfather, Mr. Smithfield, but there's some condition in the will that the heir has to preserve the Smithfield name and arms, and so he becomes Mr. Smithfield-Blackwell. The Dukes of Buckingham and Chandos seem to have taken that tendency to ridiculous extremes. I believe they were, paternally, Grenvilles. john k 05:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Please remember to list pages that you protect on Wikipedia:Protected page (see the protection policy). Thanks. Angela. 00:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Courtesy titles[edit]

I am quite confident that Hamilton would become "Viscount Hamilton." -- Emsworth 20:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Barons de Ros[edit]

I've been categorizing them as "De Ros" because the category listings don't group upper and lower case together. Mackensen 00:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Templates for British ministries[edit]

Ugen, it seems that you have created Template:17thcentmin. However, I feel that it would be better (and neater) to use a succession table for the ministries, just as succession tables are used for ministers. Would you agree if I were to remove these templates and replace them with succession tables? -- Emsworth 01:33, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had preferred succession tables because, among other things, they could display the years during which the ministry served. -- Emsworth 16:17, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think, however, that "Throughout" carries the same implication: that the individual was appointed at the beginning of the ministry and was dismissed at the end. -- Emsworth 18:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So there is...[edit]

and its:


Thanks. I'd forgotten about the proliferation of image license tags.

-- Seth Ilys 01:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank You Friend[edit]

I want to thank you for your support in my adminship nomination. It looks like I'm not going to make it but, that's life. I want you to know that you can count on me as your Wikipedian friend.

Tony the Marine


Perhaps you might be interested in the comments at User talk:Lord Emsworth and User talk:John Kenney. -- Emsworth 20:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Thank you for your kind remarks about the article on Robert Walpole, and for the additions you have made. The spelling "reëlection" is actually a legitimate spelling. The diaeresis is used to indicate that the second vowel in a pair of vowels should be pronounced on its own, instead of being combined with the first vowel. For example: reëlect, coöperate. Hyphens can also be used in these cases (and are probably more commonly used): re-elect, co-operate. -- Emsworth 01:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment; I have no problem with retaining the spelling "re-elect." Perhaps I am just too fond of accent marks (I also use "élite" and "rôle"). -- Emsworth 01:13, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Personally, I don't like using post-nominals in any historical articles, for they tend to unnecessarily clutter the lead section. I don't oppose their use in articles on living persons, though. -- Emsworth 21:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wiki Junior Project[edit]

We are currently in the process of deciding what the first topics will be. We have already decided that the first humanities topic will be Countries of the World:South America. We need to decide what our first science topic will be. We already have plenty of pictures available for Big Cats, The Solar System and Human Flight. We're having a little vote to decide which one we should work on first. Please come to Meta:Wikijunior project first topics. Cheers! Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Navigation boxes[edit]

It would definitely be a good idea to use the template in all cases, for it can be used to make everything consistent. A problem, however, arises when multiple offices have a single predecessor or successor. See, for instance, Robert Walpole's boxes for First Lord and Chancellor. If this issue can be resolved, then I would see no problem in using templates for all. -- Emsworth 01:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On reflection, it seems better just to list the same predecessor/successor twice consecutively. Too many complications arise in these other cases. (Note that in Churchill's case, an even stranger table would result: the present table fails to show that Churchill succeeded Chamberlain in three posts—not two—in 1940.) -- Emsworth 02:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm in agreement, but perhaps we could temporarily agree to not change any pages with double succession boxes until these boxes are fixed? -- Emsworth 02:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kudos on the succession box template! You and Emsworth have done yeoman service, and I will use your template from now on. Steve Casburn 09:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please block[edit]

Please block User: for repeated vandalism of my usertalk page. I've warned him repeatedly. Thanks. Whosyourjudas (talk) 02:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Thanks very much for cropping and rotating the images found on my talk page. Since I do not seem to have the software that you have used, might I direct you to the new pictures to be found on my talk page? -- Emsworth 21:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The image appears to be of the second Baron Lytton (the first Earl Lytton). -- Emsworth 02:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me[edit]

I put the NPOV header on there because people were pushing a POV. There is NO policy that says I can't do this. Also "close enough" is not the same as taking it to 3-revert war. I notice that those reverting didn't follow policy and take this to the talk page! Care to tell me where I broke Wikipedia policy? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but just because I'm an admin doesn't mean I'm not allowed to revert. You guys aren't discussing this on the talk page - apparently people are discussing this on IRC!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:38, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
IRC is frowned upon because it's not transparent. I was not aware that this was being discussed on IRC - hardly fair to me, is it? Also, how do I know what has been decided? Unless I was in the IRC channel at the time then I'd have no idea what's going on. Also, on IRC people can be kicked quite rapidly if they are unpopular. At least on something like the mailing list there is a record, and major changes aren't made there: they are made on policy pages. Face it: IRC is not great for this sort of thing. As for admin's being held to a higher standard: yes I know this, but I'd recommend that you tell me where I have crossed over policy lines before you tell me that I'm behaving badly. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hang on! You're telling me that as an administrator I'm held to a higher level, yet in the next breath you are saying that discussing things on the 'pedia itself is sluggish and no good. Please make up your mind! However, maybe the placement of the NPOV header was a mistake, and that won't happen again. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ugent, the problem I have with IRC is not necessarily the people (I've hung out on the channel - they are cool ppl), but the problem I have is one of transparency. Had I gone to the talk page and discovered that this was being talked about I might have acted differently. Noone gave cogent arguments however - they merely reverted. When edit wars start, then they SHOULD be talked about on the talk page. That way other people who don't realise that discussion is happening on IRC won't make reverts that are against community consensus. Also: I'm not saying don't discuss on IRC at all, just if we're trying to resolve edit wars and disputes the talk page is the place to do it. That way all parties can see what's happening, and we have a history of the dispute for future record. Please also note: I would not have edited your page had it been locked.

I'm willing to admit I might have made an error of judgement with the news page. However, I also want to say that it wasn't helped by having no discussion on Wikipedia itself: none of the people who reverted my edits discussed why they were reverting me on the talk page. I did put comments on the talk page after my 3rd revert, now we are having dialogue and this is being worked out. I think this sufficiently illustrates the case I'm making to you. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for your supportive vote of my bureaucratship. Unfortunately, the vote was judged to be too close, but I hope you'll support me when I run again. :) Andre (talk) 15:55, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

A quick note to say thanks[edit]


I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support in my request for adminship. It was certainly a wild ride, and I really appreciate you taking some time out to contribute. ClockworkSoul 16:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


A couple months ago I was quite rude to you. While at the time I was quite vexed by sysop abuse in the incident, you had nothing to do with that. Regardless, there was no excuse for my outburst. It's been bothering me ever since, because you seem like quite a decent fellow. So, my belated apologies. Wolfman 16:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 19:10, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Erpetoichthys calabaricus[edit]

Hi, Ugen64. The way this should work for a one-species genus (or one-genus family) is that the page should be about the species, under reedfish, with redirects from the generic name Erpetoichthys and the binomial Erpetoichthys calabaricus. See Mud sunfish for an example. And yes, Polypteriformes should redirect to Polypteridae, since there is only the one family. (I'm not sure about Polypteridae -> Bichir... We're not consistent on that yet.) Thanks for helping out with the pisces... —Tkinias 16:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I don't know why, but I particularly like your neologism disbloat (from your user page edit history). Let's hear it for living language! :) —Tkinias 17:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adminship Again[edit]

Salve, Ugen64! Back in September I was a candidate for adminship that I withdrew. Since then, I've been working away and have now decided to try again, nominating myself. Since you supported me then, I'd appreciate your vote on the new candidacy at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking2. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 18:55, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Cabal Troll[edit]

ugen64 of the Wikipedians, I hearby promote you to the Tote the Ranks rank of Cabal Troll, with all the privileges and responsibilities it entails. :)

This is your ASCII rank: \

Please use your new powers wisely. ;-)

func(talk) 05:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)