User talk:Law Lord/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Thank you for the barnstar

That was an unexpected surprise. Much appreciated. freshacconci talktalk 19:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! --Law Lord (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Image title

Thanks for that. Rich Farmbrough, 04:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC).

Cold Y Generation

Will do in the future. Thanks! Nasa-verve (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Atomised

Hi! You may be right that the US title is in fact the more common name for the book. I was just clearing the WP:RM backlog and since there wasn't really consensus on whether the title should be The Elementary Particles, Elementary Particles (novel) or The Elementary Particles (book), and since on the other hand nobody had objections on using Atomised, I thought it was best to move there rather than relist the discussion. "Atomised" is, by the way, also the form used in the sources in the article (this and this, at least). Now that you mentioned it, this does present a situation where Atomized points to a different location than Atomised, which is hardly preferable... I have no objection to reopening the discussion. Regards Jafeluv (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Stortinget

I noticed that you have moved the article Stortinget to Parliament, Norway. Just about legislatures in the Category:National legislatures use the format "Parliament of foo". I feel that if the article is to be moved, it should have been moved to Parliament of Norway. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree! However, I am unable to do so, because that article already exists. I will do a move request asap. --Law Lord (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now requested a speedy delete of Parliament of Norway, and as soon as the delete happens I will move the article there. Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hyphen to Dash

Sorry, didn't realise I had. I reverted the paragraph (rather than the entire edit) as you need to provide refs directly to individual quotations, so that one slipped me by. Sorry Ranger Steve (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Arnhem

re: your removal of the individual award for the commander of the Polish 1st Independent Airborne Brigade

Both awards were given at the same day during the same ceremony by Her Majesty, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands. The addition itself included a direct reference to the wiki article on Major General Sosabowski, where the same two awards are also mentioned together. I didn't feel it was necessary to add another external reference. The MWO award to the regiment is referenced , but though that same website does mention the Bronze Lion as well, it does not give every individual name of every single recipient, since there are over 1200 recipients of them, so that cannot be used for the general's award. 87.210.219.0 (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are 5 books listed at references in the Sosabowski article. Perhaps you could use one of those as a reference if you re-enter the sentence in the Battle of Arnhem article? --Law Lord (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

SlashinatorZ

What's wrong with the symbol &? Why will I be blocked for making things look better? Honestly I don't like the word and. I think the symbol & looks better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlashinatorZ (talk • contribs) 04:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Answered. --Law Lord (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the kind word! :D :bloodofox: (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! Only too happy to award those, when reasonable. I only wish I could do so more often. ;-) --Law Lord (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hans Diller

A present for you. You may now expand as you wish. Himalayan 17:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw the discussion on WR. Law Lord, maybe you should tell the people there that what you wrote into the german article translates directly into: "He is particularly popular in Denmark. In Danish, his name means His schlong". This sounds like the usual pubescent vandalism, and when it comes to dealing with this, there is a big difference between de and en: We don't give vandals four different warning templates before we block them. Write that same sentence into the article here and if it stays I will be first to admit that en and de are fundamentally different (and I will also understand your issues with BLPs much better). Also, you were obviously asked to give a source for the first part of your contribution, the second part is irrelevant even if it is true. Btw, you can appeal your ban at de:WP:SPP, you just have to create a new account for that and discuss with the blocking admin first. --Tinz (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You can hardly be surprised that your edits were reverted. To me it looks juvenile and unsuitable for wikipedia. The graffiti incident is not relevant to his biography. Himalayan 09:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary

I noticed you left a 'please fill in edit summary' at an ed's Talk Page using Twinkle. Its a template I think would be v. useful but I have not found it. What tab has this template? Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello mate. It is template number 11 on the "single issues notices" pane. Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! A whole box of goodies I never knew was there. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Panthera Negra

Quote: Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to 163rd Infantry Division (Germany). Thank you. Law Lord (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that Sir Law Lord, I just forget sometimes (well, to be perfectly honest, most of the time as it seems). I'll keep it in mind for future revisions. I will also try to be more accurate before posting changes, but when reading through a text it always seems that you can improve by changing some insignificant details in spelling, facts or grammer. But I will try to be more careful in the future.

Best regards from

(Panthera Negra 12:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera Negra (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks …

… for the barnstar. I don't get many, and it's always nice to see that someone's noticed my utter wonderfulness. Deor (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! --Law Lord (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Scotland

Scotland IS a country, although not an independent political state. However the display of the Union Jack in Scotland can be seen as a political statement and is highly contentious, it would be less contovertial to have the Scottish flag. If you replace the Scottish flag with the Union Jack, shouldn't you really replace all the flags of EU nations with the EU flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.245.11 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The list deals with which sovereign states that have hosted the awards. Since neither England nor Scotland are sovereign states, the list must contain United Kingdom instead. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the list is based on which city the MTV award ceremony was held in, there is absolutely no mention of sovereign state in the article. Edinburgh is a city in Scotland, London and Liverpool are cities in England. Do you have some sort of anti-Scottish political agenda here that wishes to deny we exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.245.11 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel it's necessary to accuse people of personal attacks and threaten to block somebody from Wikipedia, simply for asking a reasonable question. I see from your profile, you have never visited Scotland or England, so I will forgive you for being unaware of the issue of whether Scotland should be part of the United Kingdom and the highly controversial and politicised nature surrounding the display of flags. If somebody displays a Union Jack in Scotland, this is usually done as a Unionist political statement, to say this person wishes to be part of the UK. Displaying the Scottish Flag can be done without controversy by either Unionists or Nationalists. To have the Union Jack placed beside a description of Edinburgh makes a political debate out of the issue, whereas placing a Scotland flag there is simply a matter of fact and is politically neutral. I hope this clafiries things for you, I will make no further edits to the article as I do not wish to be blocked. --82.41.245.11 (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I have nothing against Scottish people, quite the opposite. I can sympathise with there being special local symbolism to the display of different kinds of flags. However, in order to remain neutral per Wikipedia:NPOV it is my belief that the list should display the flag of whatever sovereign state the host city is in. That way, the rules are the same for all cities and the article cannot be accused of talking sides in domestic independence controversies. As for personal attacks, it would be very unwise for me to edit the article in that way if I had any specific political agency. I have no such agenda. Whether Scotland should be part of the UK or not is not something I have an opinion about. --Law Lord (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Much appreciated, glad to see someone appreciates what I do here! :) GiantSnowman 15:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! --Law Lord (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Schleswig-Holstein

Law Lord, there are no sources stating that these royals belong to the House of Schleswig-Holstein. In fact, it is a genealogical and present impossibility. Let us either return to L-M, which is what it was for a long time, or leave it blank. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous sources, and the best one is here: "Den oldenborgske slægt afløstes i 1863 af den glücksborgske, der udgør kongefamilien i dag." (English: The House of Oldenburg was followed in 1863 by the House of Glücksburg, which makes up the royal family today.) I am not interested in an edit war, but your claim is wholly without merit. --Law Lord (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In English, on the website, all it says is that the "Present Royal Family are the direct descendants of the House of Glücksborg". It says nothing of Margrethe's descendants being members of this house. This is much like the UK being ruled by the House of Hanover until 1901 when all of the Queen's agnatic descendants were members of the House of Wettin. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the original Danish text must take precedent. I find this discussion strange because you are disputing a fact which is obvious to any Dane. --Law Lord (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is quite obvious. Are you suggesting that the official website of the Royal Family is contradicting itself? Do you feel that there are nuances in Danish that you perhaps are missing? I don't see how the original, unclear Danish text takes precedent when much is available about the House of Glücksburg in English literature and much has been noted about the House (a group of agnates) for centuries. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no nuances in the Danish text. --Law Lord (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

RFPP

Per WP:RFPP: "Protection will only be considered in the event of extremely high levels of vandalism." Please note this! For this dispute, I'd recommend WP:DR or soliciting comments from a related WikiProject. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

MTV Generation

Excuse me? There has barely been any discussion, and anybody who has actually entered into substantive discussion of the matter eventually agreed that the MTV Generation page should probably be merged... Then it was reopened a couple of days ago, two people took "oppose" positions, without responding to any of the arguments or submitting sources of their own, and you conclude that the result was "clearly" to oppose? And now you want ME to act constructively? I've been trying to have a discussion for more than month now. Try engaging in the conversation, rather than simply asserting that you are correct. Please address the complete lack of credible sources on the topic of the MTV Generation. Believe me, if you find some coherent sources, I'll be more than happy to keep the article, but as it stands, based on all of the sources I have found, MTV Generation is really nothing more than a catch all term for "young people today." It is not a suitable encyclopedia topic. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely with your assertions. If you know so much on this matter, why do you not improve the Generation Y article? It certainly needs improvement. As I wrote, you are free to open a new merge discussion but perhaps it would help to improve the article first. I sense you are quite the deletionist? --Law Lord (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on the Generation Y article, as best as I can. I have tried to add sourced research, to move it forward from being a collection of lists and pop psychology. Obviously there is much to do. But that is irrelevant to the discussion about the future of MTV Generation. Why do you not address the fact that there are absolutely no sources for MTV Generation? Why do you want me to open a new merge discussion, when there was already one ongoing? Why not simply refrain from closing the old one??? Why don't we discuss the merits of MTV Generation, separate from procedural squabbling? Let's put it simply: I don't care what course we take with MTV Generation, as long as we are not making things up. As it stands now, there is not evidence that MTV Generation is an encyclopedic concept, but rather a term used to refer to people of either Gen X or Y. Either, we should delete, merge, or find some real sources. Deletion, seems drastic as some people may look for the term. I could not find sources, but invite you to try if you are so attached to the term. A merge seemed to me the easiest route. Thank you for your cooperation. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I closed the merge discussion because it had been running for a month, and based on recent activity it seemed unlikely that there would be added more to the discussion. At some point, one has to face that a discussion has run its course, and 1 month is actually a lot longer than most discussions are allowed to run. However, I certainly agree with you that the MTV Generation article needs some more sources. Thus, I am going to make it a top priority to add more sources to it. --Law Lord (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

well, since it had been closed, and then re-opened, you're being a bit misleading. Nonetheless, I won't worry about it, since you will improve the article. Hope that works out. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jutland Peninsula

On Talk:Jutland Peninsula there was a lot of text, which made very little sense. From what I could gather, parts of it were a discussion taking place at a time, when signing posts with both names and timestamps was not yet done. In the spirit of being bold, I deleted the text. You were the only user, who is still active, that participated in the discussion. If you object to my action, please let me know. --Law Lord (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've moved a copy of this from my to your chat page so you will know quickly that I concur completely. To put what I recall of the context on it, this page was mostly the inane fulminations of a particular user who had a veritable arsenal of nonsensical historico-political axes to grind, and the excision of this seems overdue :). Sjc (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Slashinator concerns

Good call; you have every right to be concerned and I'll advise him of it. Thanks for letting me know.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My Watchlist Help

I don't know what the numbers beside things mean. Can you help? There is stuff that say + (n) or - (n)... don't know what it means. Oh and another thing... can you PM me with some advise... i am new to wikipedia. User_Talk:DotHackFan —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

It means that a number of characters were either added or deducted from the article. Sorry for being late in my reply. --Law Lord (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)