User talk:DAFMM/Archive 3

P. S. All posts are filled by their starting date (e. g. if a comment was posted in May and finished in July it is filed in May, but the conversation is only filed after it has finished).

Sir Thomas Cochrane

Posted to: User: Dabbler.

Cochrane actually called himself Sir Thomas Cochrane aswell as Lord Cochrane.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

He once qouted: "I, Sir Thomas Cochrane, commonly called Lord Cochrane..." This is in Cochrane The Dauntless by David Cordingly. Also I would be interested to see where it says it is a incorrect usage of his title as I am not to sure whether it is or not.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

I refer you to a number of well known peers who also had knighthoods, Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, John Jervis, 1st Earl of St. Vincent, Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis, Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig as you may notice, not one of them have either Sir or Rt. Hon in their Wikipedia articles, because that does not follow the correct style. Now the Rt. Hon. part is due to Wikipedia as English peers should have Rt. Hon. though not I think Scottish peersm but the Sir bit is because it is superseded by the senior title of Earl, Viscount or Duke. Dabbler (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sir" Thomas

Perhaps he did, a citation would be nice, but that would be incorrect style and therefore not encyclopedic. If Prince Charles decides to call himself Mr Prince, Wikipedia should make a note of it but should not use it in the lead paragraph as his correct style unless he renounced all of his other titles etc. Dabbler (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titles Box

How do you get a titles box for the Peerage of Brazil?

With compliments.

DAFMM.—Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 6 May, 2009 (UTC).

You can find no evidence...

...because there is none to be found in the public channels. Many have destroyed historical records in an attempt to erase me and my lineage from history, so I have had to take steps to ensure that they shall always fail in their misguided efforts. My power is too great to be undone by such puny demonstrations of lesser people's envy and malice.

And yes, I do love boasting. It's considered a virtue here. Do try it some times—it's very relaxing.

PS: I assume that 81.149.201.240 is you. Please keep in mind that when you leave a message somewhere, it's better to edit/remove it through the same account, or someone might think that vandalism has occurred and act accordingly. Waltham, The Duke of 10:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navy

Posted to: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald talk page.

Should the Navy be spelt with capitals?

With compliments.

DAFMM.—Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 9 May, 2009 (UTC).

I think it is a matter of context. If it is an abbreviation of the Royal Navy then it should it be capitalised as a proper noun. Example:

British people think that Admiral Nelson is the best known sailor who ever served in the Navy.

If it is a general noun used to indicate the naval armed force of a country then it should be lower case. Example: Strategists believe that having a navy to exert sea power is vital to promote a country's military interests. Dabbler (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:UniversityofOxford

May I ask what is up with this account? Do you have a legitimate reason to have an alternate account? And, even if you do, why does this account has a name that implies it is affiliated with the University of Oxford? That is probably a violation of Wikipedia's username guidelines. Unless you have a good reason for having this account, it may have to be blocked if it starts making edits. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note I am also unclear as the purpose of User:HandyTips. As a help guide it is surely redundant to the copious help sections on wikipedia, and if you wanted to retain this information, it would be better to be in a user subpage rather than setting up another account. Benea (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

N.: UniversityofOxford User.

I have a legitimate claim to the user as nothing says that noone can't contribute with their desired user (University of Oxford for me). However, if it breaks the naming rules then i will have to change it. However, I have decided that I am going to leave the account anyway as I can't see the point of having a 'moribund' account. I was going to use it instead of DAFMM but I think I shall keep DAFMM. The user 'HandyTips' I created to give both me and others a reference to how to use wikipedia. I just thought it might be handy for other users as I often need to use it.

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

Thanks for being so understanding. I will sought out this issue about my other username probably by closing the account (please can you show me how to do that!). I am considering starting a subpage for HandyTips but for the moment it will stay how it is.

Thanks a lot for all your help.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

No problem, I've raised the request over at WP:AN, and I expect we shall get some feedback soon. Benea (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I add that thing to the page.

Thanks very much.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

Admiral The Lord Cochrane

To: Benea.

Have you heard of Admiral Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald? He was a Napoleonic sailor and rebel politician. After doing some very detailed research (about 6 months worth!) I think that he should have as much respect as The Viscount Nelson. Do you think we could do something to his Wikipedia page to help? What ado you think?

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

Of course, a very interesting character. No doubt you have read David Cordingly's 'Cochrane the Dauntless'? The article on him at the moment is quite good, what areas do you think could be improved? I'm currently working on Nelson himself, but I'll try to help with Cochrane if I can. Benea (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was thinking of just generally expanding the page and maybe giving it some sought of authority.

Thanks again.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

Alternative accounts

Thanks for your explanation. The use of alternative accounts, or sockpuppets are carefully regulated on wikipedia, and can be used in some circumstances. My concern was that you had set up an apparently redundant alternative account to contain your thoughts on the tools and tips to wikipedia. Wikipedia already has numerous help pages and places where the nuances of editing are discussed. If you still wanted to set up an unofficial one of these, setting up a subpage in your userspace would have been the best way to go about it. No one appears to be aware of the existence of User:HandyTips as it has only ever been edited by you, and I can't think how anyone wanting to know about editing wikipedia would know how to find it. User:Rjanag has highlighted a more pressing issue with the account User:UniversityofOxford, which is an apparent violation of the user name policy (specifically 'Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. For example, misleading points of fact, an impression of undue authority, or the suggestion that the account is operated by a group, project or collective rather than one individual.') I'd suggest continuing to use only User:DAFMM and only setting up alternative accounts when absolutely necessary, and when you are sure no better alternative exists. I think you would find that this happens only very rarely. On another note, have you thought about archiving talk on your page rather than just deleting it? At the very least you might think about leaving posts on your page for a couple of weeks perhaps, to facilitate discussions. Benea (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DAFMM, if you log on as User:UniversityofOxford you can tag the user page and talk page with {{db-u1}}, which will alert administrators to the fact that the user wants those pages deleted. Benea (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

Hello, I have noticed you are continuing to remove all red links from articles despite being asked to stop. Please only remove red links if you believe the linked article will never be created, otherwise leave them in the article. Take a look at Wikipedia:Red link - an editing guideline you may find useful. Please also consider using the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up the page history. All the best. BarretBonden (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who told me to stop? One user told me to stop undoing one redlink. Until you give me a legitimate reason to stop I think the best thing to do is to carry on. What about all of the good reasons for undoing them? If there ever is a page created on the subject then it should be made a link again. But until then. With compliments. DAFMM (talk).

Thanks for finnally making a legitimate claim! Well done! I will read the redlinks article. With compliments. DAFMM (talk).

You're welcome, but you have been given a link to that page before. BarretBonden (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that them would never even need to be created? DAFMM (talk)

If you think an article will never be created for the red link then certainly remove it, but it appears that you are removing all red links from articles just because you think it looks messy. Red links help Wikipedia grow. BarretBonden (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arborology and Dendrology

I noticed you are thinking of starting a page on Arborology. I see there is already a short page on Dendrology which is described as the study of trees and woody plants. I am no expert, but that seems to be the same thing and it was a word I had already heard but I haven't heard of Arborology (though I know of words with the same root such as arborist, arboretum etc). Perhaps you should think of expanding the Dendrology page (and putting a reference to Arborology). If, on the other hand, they are completely separate disciplines, it shows that there is a real need for something to differentiate them! Dabbler (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dabbler:

N.: Dendrology and Aborology

Dendrology is more about wooded plants as a whole. Arborology is more about trees specifically. There is also dendrochronology which is the subject of aging wooded plants. I didn't know there was one of dendrology so I will expand it.

Thanks a lot. I didn't know!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 25th May 2009.

P. S. I have just started building a page of arborology and have improved the page on dendrology.

I've noticed there is an article for Arboriculture. Is this the same thing as Arborology or are they different? Barret (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are slightly different but basically have the same meaning as with arborology.

With compliments.

DAFMM.

Image captions

Hello I see you are adding a full stop to every image caption you find. I thought you might like to know that, unless the caption is a complete sentence, this is unnecessary. From Wikipedia's Manual of Style: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (sentence fragments) that should not end with a period." Cheers. BarretBonden (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was here to say the same thing. Adding periods to captions is not necessary. Also, even if it was necessary, massive minor edits such as this can be handled by a bot. Do not concern yourself with such trivial fixes, it is better to concentrate on improving the quality of articles instead of things such as this. But thanks anyway! --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to DAFMM – sorry but you are wrong. Did you even look at MOS:CAPTIONS? Please make an effort to follow Wikipedia's manual of style instead of disregarding it for your own personal preferences. Regards. BarretBonden (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captions

Technically a caption (e. g. Brighton Pier) is a sentence and so needs a full stop.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

Hello ErgoSum. In case you hadn't noticed, the above user has created the discussion page User talk:ErgoSum88/Bio. BarretBonden (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed, but it looks like it was a mistake. I think he was trying to leave me a message but clicked on the bio discussion page instead. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DAFMM

A rather eccentric editor