209:
on, took one look at the structure we had put into peer's titles and went ballistic, screaming in effect 'what is all this gargage about Lord so-and-so and
Viscount such-and-such.' An edit war erupted. Some of us working to solve the names mess raised it on the mailing list. To our horror, nearly 50% of people in replies (including some of the most respected wikipedians) came back saying 'yeah. Lets scrap these royal titles and this imperialist nonsense once and for all. Everyone should be a plain Mr. and Ms.' I was so pissed off I left wikipedia for a month. I guarantee if you keep using styles in the way you want you will provoke someone in the 'this is all imperialistic nonsense' brigade and if they raise it, you will be swamped with complaints and every single style will be removed. (I had to fight some attempts on the votes for deletion page to delete the
767:. It works on the same principle as the one being used (only less complicated! I never thought I would find a system more complicated than PR.STV!) What you do is give your bottom preference to the people you want to defeat, and spread your vote in a way that boosts the rivals of the alternative you do not want. So if for example, you find Alternative 3 the one you least like, give it your bottom vote so that opposition to it is recorded. And spread the other votes to ensure the weakest get votes ahead of it. If for example in Ireland I want to ensure candidate 'x' of Fianna Fáil is elected, and ensure candidate 'y' of Sinn Féin is defeated, and there are 15 candidates, I give my number 1 to 'x', my number '15' to 'y' and spread my other votes to ensure that all other candidates beat 'y'.
317:
likely to challenge titles than in the past, that simply is not true. In reality, people come and go all the time. You have no idea if someone will come on next week or next month (or in an hours time) and go ballistic at all the 'His
Holiness' stuff and start round 8 of that never ending battle. And yes many of the biggest names in here are as opposed to using peerage titles at all today as they were one or two years ago. (One very prominent one is always joking to me in correspondence that he is just waiting for someone to make a "very stupid mistake" in the area of names. Once that opening is made he says he will enthusiastically vote to get off "all this royal and imperialistic nonsense".) And this is a
854:: "I really don't care what sources you cite for incorrectly using em and en dashes. I am a professional typographer. This is my business. You are obviously not a typographer. When it comes to typography, I know exactly what I'm talking about whereas you are apparently clueless. I am right. You are wrong. That's bottomline."). You'll have realised that, for all his dogmatism about the use of English, Adraeus isn't a native speaker, and often comes out with some peculiar locutions. You can only keep returning the article to correct usage, perhaps going to RfC for outside comments. Be careful of 3RR, though; you're getting close.
58:
over two months tore all the pages to shreds, worked on a template, reviewed names (I myself was on to
Buckingham Palace, St. James's Palace, the Governors-General of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the office of the King of Spain, the press office of the Queen of the Netherlands, etc. for factually accurate information.) Eventually the naming conventions pages were agreed, after drafts being circulated by email on the mailing list, in talk pages, etc.
917:
point in favour of redirects - using "what links here" you can see which pages use which version of a name to link to the article. This can be useful in naming disputes - but if people go through and systematically change all links to point directly, this sort of meta-information is lost. That's not an issue in this case, but I still very quietly go "grr" whenever I see the edit summary "bypassing redirect". It ain't necessary, kids!
1082:. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate.
1035:
964:
801:
428:
I expect there will be a lot of transatlantic monarchist versus republican flak over titles and honorific, but to refer to her as Queen
Elizabeth II every time is long-winded, and 'she' and 'her' sounds a little disrespectful;' Queen Elizabeth' is the late Queen Mother - but someone will say she is not the only Queen, well I take the view in Buckingham Palace she is. I would be interested in your opinion.
62:
other royal 'issues') reviewed what to do about styles. A consensus was agreed. I was asked to write it up but as I knew I would be off wikipedia for quite a few months I passed on it. I don't know if the agreement was actually written up by anyone in the Naming
Conventions but that is what was meant to happen.
208:
You don't seem to realise, Peter, just how thin the ice is over titles here on wikipedia. After months of work on the naming conventions on royalty, having discussed it ad nausaum with people, a few of us spent weeks and weeks and weeks changing all articles to the one format. One day a new user came
105:
and you will infuriate republicans in Greece. Leave it out and Greek royalists, who believe he is the legitimate king and should be treated the same way as other royals, will go ballistic. And both sides with have an edit war. Ditto with the current prime minister of
Bulgaria, who is a king who never
770:
Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil voters famously used to practice a 'first and only choice' vote by just voting for their own preferred candidate and then stopping. They eventually realised that they were wasting their vote because they weren't using it to block those they were most opposed to, or to build
427:
Thanks I want to get this right if only by my own standards which is to show no intentional disrespect to the The Queen, but not have the page obsequious either, hence I have done HM Queen
Elizabeth II once and then The Queen thereafter. If this goes to featured article (and I'm not sure it should)
135:
If royalty and presidents have their styles used, should members of parliament? Members of local authorities? Members of town councils? University graduates? Every clergyman from every religion? Should formal styles be used even when the office holder doesn't use it normally and it has not been used
84:
Using styles in some contexts may be ludirously provocative. For example, millions believe that Pope Pius XII was pro-nazi, or at least not sufficiently pro-democracy, and that millions died by his inactions. It is a claim based on a chronic ignorance of how one researches history, which is that one
384:
Can you please not revert the gay template discussion? My edits of the gay holocaust article were in good faith but has now been totally reverted, I have been attacked on the talk page, and I will not edit it again. I don't want to be smeared like that user was trying to do, because this is my real
57:
When I came on to wikipedia, its 'royal' pages were an embarrassing joke. Contributors were insisting on putting in royalty under their supposed personal name rather than title. We had a blazing edit war just to stop the Prince of Wales being called
Charles Windsor!!! A group of us got together and
916:
You're right that it takes less server effort, although I don't think redirects are bringing the servers to their knees exactly. And as for it looking more professional - I guess that's true, as they don't see the "redirected from" line, but I don't find that too much of a worry. There is one more
316:
is wrong to use when his name was simply John Major and at the 'Right
Honourable' is rarely used in Britain and hardly ever used outside it. This is an encyclopaedia, not a book on royalty, and it has got to use language appropriate to the readership. As to the suggestion that wikipedians are less
288:
be used. All US congressmen must be called 'honourable'. The right styles of all MEPs, members of parliament of each and every parliament in the world and every head of state must be used. If Idi Amin was still president of Uganda, then he would have to be referred to by the right style. Clergymen
180:
may be simply a style to you and me, but there are many people who when they see it interpret it at best as a bit if of puke-inducing sugarly OTT language that should be scrapped alongside the hereditary peers in the Lords. Others think it is a POV statement, that you are saying 'this man is right
1138:
has been opened regarding the prefixed style NPOV dispute, the RfC which was opened with respect to my account, and personal attacks made and restored by certain parties. I have named you as an involved party and therefore I am notifying you of this RfAr in order that you may respond accordingly.
1073:
I note that
Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to
525:
And I agree with you that "Zürich" is completely idiotic, but... it was debated at length, and trying to change it is just going to cause a flame-fest. (BTW, I loved your line about "I'm sick of being told by people who aren't native speakers of my language that I'm using it wrongly ... using its
521:
As to finding the page, I would make it a critical part of any changed policy (and I don't think anyone would disagree) that there MUST be redirects from all common English forms. That would definitely take care of links/searches inside Knowledge - I'm not sure if it would take care of the Google
509:
Hi, I actually agree with you about the "International Knowledge (which, by the way, happens to be written mostly in English)" (it's really irritating that e.g German speakers have a place where they can retreat to and do what they want, but the English-speakers, unique among Wikipedians, have no
397:
Is there any case where a peer's article title would include all of his middle names? I can think of one, and that would be Spencer Compton Cavendish, who was named after the prime minister (or maybe vice versa). I was wondering, because Knowledge is highly incongruous on that topic - you've been
80:
People from cultures where they are not familiar with them frequently interpret them as a POV expression of wikipedia's views on a person, and so wage constant edit wars on pages where they appear. Various pages on popes have have edit wars over the style 'Holiness' which some people (ludicrously
61:
After all that was done (and battles fought to get people to accept royal titles, etc), one problem hit that caused nightmares. That was whether to use styles. The same group of us who had done the initial work (I had pulled together all the opinions expressed into a workable solution on all the
181:
and honourable'. The idea that wikipedia has grown beyond that is ridiculous. It never will. They can't get away with the Charles Windsor nonsense because the article is now so academically written that people who don't know their facts back away from it rather than showing their ignorance. And
127:
Use styles for royals and the question is raised: why aren't republican heads of state also described using styles? And that is the ultimate hornets' nest. Millions still think Saddam is the legitimate president of Iraq. Some of them may want to put in the President of Iraq's style on his page.
217:
was a load of pompous and irrelevant nonsense. I was actually suprised when I came back to find that it was still on wikipedia. I presumed that it would have been deleted, given that most of those who had done the work on the royal pages had left; some in frustration at the attitude of so many
778:
Just be careful though not to copy everyone else doing it. If everyone gives the same other alternatives the same order of votes they may win. So if option 4 gets a lot of 2s, give it a 4. Doing a full vote right down the line will have the effect of strengthening Alternative 1 vis-a-vis 3 or
1119:
Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed.
903:? They go to the same place, and the former is simpler wikicode. It's not a big issue, I suppose, but redirects are our friends, we should take advantage of them (isn't that's what friends are for?). I feel like I'm becoming a bit of a redirect evangelist lately. :)
510:
such refuge) but unless we actually get counted consensus on "use the most common English version" (and I don't have the energy to start/run a poll), and really enforce it (e.g. on Zurich, etc) I'd rather just change the damn policy page to reflect reality.
1115:
That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions
252:
nightmarish rows, not to mention their entire removal in the event of a row with someone who convinces people with a 'what is all this imperialist rubbish' argument, simply by contextualising and explaining the style in the text rather than using it.
164:
of the problems. There are many more. If you put in styles you basically make every single article with one a potential target for edit wars and vandalism. When I left one article on a pope was the subject of an edit war about the style of
344:
When reverting a page or template, especially "inthenews", make sure that you put a {{*test*}} (without the astericks) on it. If it's something that affects the main page, I personally go straight for {{*test3*}} or higher. --
538:
PS: Just checked, and for both Google and Yahoo, searching for "Zurich", Knowledge's entry shows up on the 3rd page of results for pages in English; searching for "Zürich" gives it on the second page on Google, third on Yahoo.
173:
the same thing will be happening two years from now. Every time a new 'generation' of users comes on to wikipedia the same percentage of each new group will take one look, scream "pov" and start the edit war all over again.
283:
styles from all holders of styles must be included. Which means, irrespective of whether it is normally used, the formal style of Bush must be used, of every Roman Catholic, anglican, protestant, jewish and other clergyman
783:
votes down the line, because while their opposition to different alternatives is recorded, by stopping at 1 your's isn't. And the winner won't be decided by who has more votes for, but which faces the least opposition.
826:
That would be quite a laugh, were he to be so bold. If jguk starts an RfC I'd be happy to participate. Maybe, once the dust settles, we can return to the (comparatively) humdrum question of the styles themselves!
352:
There wasn't much point, since I'd blocked the IP immediately after reverting. I think the rather prominent notice saying "IF YOU VANDALISE THIS TEMPLATE, YOU WILL BE ***BLOCKED*** IMMEDIATELY" at the top of
526:
English name (or with English spelling, which normally leaves out diacritics)". So much for cultural relativism, or whatever the PC-jargon term is for the claim that every local custom is inherently valid!)
435:
a run for its money! but my only knowledge of titles etc. comes through architecture and the Italian title system which is not quite the same, and nobody cares so much anyway - probably a good thing too!
197:
you are guaranteed to have people take one look at it, scream 'what the hell? What's with this 'Holiness' bullshit' and delete it over and over and over for months and years to come. If you don't
89:
automatically sujectivises the article by appearing to judge him as venerable when in reality the only people who use such a term are a small minority of catholics, based on his path to sainthood.
367:
Oh, great. I hadn't checked that out. Should still leave something on their talk pages, just in case they vandalise once their block is up, we know to treat them more seriously than others. --
266:(BTW - the boss interrupted me, hence the half save on your page. And sorry about the length of this. But it is a far more complex issue than you realise. I don't think you know the background.)
169:. When I came back 6 months later a new group of people were fighting exactly the same war, making exactly the same arguments. And if we are stupid enough to start papal articles with
85:
shouldn't blame people from making what history sees as a wrong judgment when it was made by them on the basis of information that they didn't have, but we do. However calling Pius
871:
I have my eye on the article. And don't worry — if you break the 3RR you won't have to block yourself, I'll do it for you (if you promise to block me in similar circumstances).
1065:
333:
BTW - just checked. I have six emails. Five are from wikipedians suggesting that styles should be deleted completely. One wants to keep them but wants them toned down.
431:
My subject is architecture, which is why I started to interfere on the page, but I think this page needed sorting in view of how many pages link to it, and also give
113:
was still alive, and we didn't put in a HRH they'd be an edit war from those who thought she should never have been denied one. ii) ditto with the Duchess of Windsor.
1050:
491:
that Jack Ryan is only ever jokingly referred to as "Sir John" isn't actually true. The Queen herself refers to him as "Sir John" quite seriously several times in
1018:
1124:
1086:
839:
654:
article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at
39:
440:
19:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS I used to have the user name "Ragussa" further up your page, amazing how often titles and architecture run together isn't it?
865:
650:
to keep the Knowledge policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the
1110:
3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.
1006:
289:
who had buggered little boys and been imprisoned for it, but who had not been defrocked yet, would be entitled to be called by their style in here.
231:
they are a proverbial hornets' nest of problems over whether republican heads of state should also have styles attached, the status of ex-royals, etc
116:
What do we do with Princess Louise of Wessex? Her parents say to call her Lady Louise and drop the HRH. But technically she is a princess with a HRH.
850:' dogmatic assertion that turned out to be mistaken, nor will he back down, no matter how many arguments and how much evidence you provide (e.g.,
1075:
598:
as you seem to have strong feelings about the issue. You can also see how I am attempting to "enforce" my "demands" which I know you want to do.
996:
882:
840:
927:
1140:
205:
it in the context of the article, you make it far harder to justify deleting. And by not using it you again avoid any claims of POV.
119:
Should Princes William and Harry be called HRH, given that they asked people not to call them by that, but it is their official style?
973:
763:
Alternative 1 because it means that less opposition is recorded against its nearest rival. Ireland uses an electoral system called
321:
prominent activist here. One can but hope that the grossly unencyclopaedic use of styles here does not become that big mistake.
309:
681:. Being a contributor to the previous vote you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move in the new vote on
272:
1. It isn't about some things being right and some things being wrong. 'The Right Honourable Tony Blair' and 'Tony Blair' are
771:
up the rivals to the candidate they were opposed to. To stop Alternative 3 winning, if that is what you want, give it your
910:
292:
Quite frankly the whole idea is nutty. It also breaks the fundamental requirement that wikipedia sets, simplicity. Saying
968:
942:. One user is intent on claiming that the Governor-General is the head of state. Others have disagreed but to no avail.
974:
98:
What happens if there is a dispute over whether a monarch has abdicated in the process of declaring a republic. Call
705:. There is a campaign right now from a handful of people to unilaterally remove it. (I told you this would happen.)
95:
The King of Sweden and the European Court of Human Rights have clashed over the status of some minor royals' titles.
456:
834:
821:
595:
109:
What of where there is a controversy over whether someone who married into a royal family can use a style? i) if
805:
634:
237:
in a row the likelihood is that the community, as it nearly did over titles, will vote to scrap them entirely
1039:
980:
Hi, I see you have some interest/expertise with the peerage. Can you check out this page? I'm not sure if
279:
2. If it was decided (and it would be an extremely foolish decision) to include styles then in all fairness
1060:
647:
594:
If you want to put your view across about not editing articles do so in the Overweight articles section at
1143:
488:
933:
686:
674:
210:
1099:, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:
398:
moving all the articles to no middle name titles, while most links have the middle names... thanks,
888:
110:
99:
92:
Using styles for royalty poses complicated problems where a dispute exists over styles and titles.
1096:
1067:
939:
1136:
992:
Roger was, etc., and while I ought to just go look it up someplace, maybe you have the answer?
759:
Re your vote on styles. I understand and agree. But only casting one vote is effectively a vote
482:
276:
right. One however matches the wikipedia rule of simplicity and accuracy, the other breaks it.
1079:
811:
420:
Thanks for the advice I've changed it accordingly. Should it be 'The Queen' or 'the Queen' ?
148:? (And how would wikipedia look millions of people opposed to Bush worldwide if we called him
614:
583:
779:
whatever. Just voting for 1 and stopping actually weakens it against its rivals if everyone
77:
Most encyclopaedias do not use them in articles but (at best) explain them in a line or two;
26:
981:
876:
859:
610:
I hope you come back soon and don't let the irritants of wikipedia keep you away for long.
354:
8:
851:
831:
818:
734:
472:
1003:
993:
924:
907:
724:
576:
560:
556:
132:
president of Haiti or not? Should the Haitian president's style be used in his article?
122:
Should the Prince of Naples, the no-longer exiled crown prince of Italy, be called HRH?
1049:
Hello. Persuant to your comment, I have created a second RFC against Lulu. It is at
550:
308:(I had such a hassle trying to get a lot of people to stop calling her that in here).
985:
702:
414:
361:
17:
1057:
889:
745:
625:
611:
580:
402:
386:
1002:
Thanks! I'll have to go look up jure uxoris, but I appreciate your corrections.
872:
855:
659:
599:
498:
432:
50:
Hi Peter. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. It is best to describe the
1121:
1104:
1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy
1083:
989:
943:
828:
815:
754:
731:
476:
682:
31:
Thanks for taking the time to support the move I suggested, much appreciated.
921:
904:
655:
543:
530:
514:
493:
475:? I'm skeptical about an Earldom being created for a 25-year old nowadays. --
312:
is necessary because he was variously known by either or both names. But the
32:
692:
504:
413:
1130:
1012:
847:
579:. I was wondering about order of precedence for the early Scottish earls.
368:
358:
346:
665:
589:
497:. Not that I'm objecting to your removing it from the article. Cheers. --
1054:
1044:
742:
706:
622:
564:
399:
322:
254:
128:
Others say 'no way' and take it out again. Is Jean Bertrand Aristide the
339:
81:
IMHO) interpret as a wikipedia expression of belief that a pope is holy.
775:
and give your second, third and fourth choices to the weakest options.
447:
437:
421:
54:
problem by going back to the beginning of the whole issue of royalty.
1107:
2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia
605:
570:
670:
651:
540:
527:
511:
1034:
963:
800:
65:
After reviewing all the evidence, the general agreement was that
678:
575:
Hi, I was wondering if you might take a look at my comments at
522:
search issue, though. (And if not, this should be brought out.)
300:
or more correctly since her death in standard academic format
947:
1074:
submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at
765:
Proportional Representation using a Single Transferable Vote
950:. I am suspicious. Independent observers would be welcome.
1051:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2
635:
379:
1019:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
621:
Yes, yes, it's been a month. Please come back soon! :)
136:
for decades. Should the president of Ireland be called
45:
392:
385:name and I don't want to get in trouble. Thank you
228:
they are guaranteed to constantly provoke edit wars
221:Sorry for the length of this - the bottom line is
640:
464:==Earls of Bridgewater, Third Creation, (1999)==
73:styles is best avoided for a number of reasons:
895:Does it really matter if the link is written as
467:* Andrew Rose, 1st Earl of Bridgewater (b.1973)
304:is out because there never was such a person as
1076:Knowledge:Australian Wikipedians' notice board
946:is convinced at this stage that the user is a
697:It seems that people are needed to defend the
846:I'm afraid that you won't get an apology for
841:James Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie
1053:. Perhaps you could check it out. Cheers,
38:Dear Peter, thanks for noticing my reuqest.
1135:Please note that a Request for Arbitration
185:is exactly how to solve the problem. Don't
814:. Just who does Whig think he is anyway?
988:actually preceded Mortimer, what number
14:
310:Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton
1091:My proposed policy position is this:
646:Hi there. I noticed you voted in the
457:Earls of Bridgewater, Third Creation
389:21:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters
213:definition because people thought a
140:? Should the US president be called
234:they are not used in encyclopaedias
23:
487:Hi there. Actually, your claim in
269:You completely missed the point.
24:
1154:
975:Roger_Mortimer,_4th_Earl_of_March
1033:
962:
810:Thanks for restoring my vote on
799:
596:Knowledge:Village pump (policy)
195:His Holiness Pope John Paul II
13:
1:
730:Hello and welcome back, sir!
1066:Vote on policy positions at
984:gets counted as an Earl, if
648:Knowledge:Naming policy poll
7:
489:Order of the British Empire
483:Order of the British Empire
314:Right Honourable John Major
10:
1159:
1021:. A new issue has arisen.
741:Hiya and welcome back. :)
641:_Kolkata_name_change": -->
636:_Kolkata_name_change": -->
737:20:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
727:20:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
720:23:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
675:Knowledge:Requested moves
617:23:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
602:03:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
586:04:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
479:05:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
446:Thankyou - we shall see!
424:17:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
407:00:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
364:17:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
330:17:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
42:21:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
35:19:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
27:Airbus Industrie → Airbus
1144:12:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
1125:23:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
1087:23:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
1061:11:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
1040:20:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
1007:13:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
997:16:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
969:00:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
938:You may want to look at
928:16:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
911:16:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
883:12:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
866:12:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
835:13:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
822:12:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
750:22:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
689:09:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
662:13:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
630:04:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
567:00:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
517:21:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
501:19:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
450:19:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
298:Diana, Princess of Wales
262:17:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
111:Diana, Princess of Wales
100:Constantine II of Greece
1097:Government of Australia
1068:Government of Australia
940:Government of Australia
806:00:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
546:22:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
533:22:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
461:Would you please check
225:styles can look too POV
152:when no-one else does?)
1080:Knowledge:Village pump
812:Talk:Pope Benedict XVI
673:has been nominated on
559:regarding the move of
551:Middlesex and UtherSRG
982:Philippa Plantagenet
687:Philip Baird Shearer
355:Template:In the news
244:allegations of POV,
920:Okay, rant over ;)
852:Talk:Atheism/dashes
677:for a page move to
639:Kolkata name change
473:Earl of Bridgewater
357:is warning enough.
577:Talk:List of Earls
561:Middlesex, England
557:User talk:UtherSRG
302:Lady Diana Spencer
1058:(Rabbit and pork)
986:Lionel of Antwerp
934:Governors-General
748:
723:Welcome back! --
703:Pope Benedict XVI
693:Pope Benedict XVI
628:
505:English Knowledge
415:Buckingham Palace
405:
193:it. If you write
156:These are just a
18:User talk:Proteus
1150:
1038:
1037:
1026:
967:
966:
955:
890:Marquess of Bute
879:
862:
804:
803:
792:
746:
718:
711:
666:Zürich to Zurich
642:
637:
626:
590:Editing Thatcher
403:
178:Right Honourable
1158:
1157:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1133:
1071:
1047:
1027:
1022:
1015:
978:
956:
951:
936:
893:
877:
860:
844:
793:
788:
757:
712:
707:
695:
668:
644:
638:Calcutta -: -->
608:
592:
573:
555:Hi. Please see
553:
507:
485:
459:
433:The White House
418:
395:
382:
342:
340:Warning vandals
48:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1156:
1132:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1117:
1112:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1070:
1064:
1046:
1043:
1014:
1011:
1010:
1009:
990:Earl of Ulster
977:
972:
944:User:Adam Carr
935:
932:
931:
930:
918:
892:
887:
886:
885:
843:
838:
756:
753:
752:
751:
694:
691:
667:
664:
643:
633:
632:
631:
607:
606:Come back soon
604:
591:
588:
572:
571:Scottish earls
569:
552:
549:
548:
547:
535:
534:
523:
506:
503:
484:
481:
470:
458:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
417:
412:
410:
394:
391:
381:
378:
376:
374:
373:
372:
371:
341:
338:
336:
306:Princess Diana
294:Princess Diana
264:
263:
240:you can avoid
238:
235:
232:
229:
226:
201:the style but
154:
153:
133:
125:
124:
123:
120:
117:
114:
107:
96:
90:
82:
78:
69:as opposed to
47:
44:
28:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1155:
1146:
1145:
1142:
1137:
1126:
1123:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1089:
1088:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1069:
1063:
1062:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1042:
1041:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1025:
1020:
1008:
1005:
1004:Kaisershatner
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
995:
994:Kaisershatner
991:
987:
983:
976:
971:
970:
965:
961:
960:
954:
949:
945:
941:
929:
926:
923:
919:
915:
914:
913:
912:
909:
906:
902:
898:
891:
884:
881:
874:
870:
869:
868:
867:
864:
857:
853:
849:
842:
837:
836:
833:
830:
824:
823:
820:
817:
813:
808:
807:
802:
798:
797:
791:
787:
782:
776:
774:
768:
766:
762:
749:
744:
740:
739:
738:
736:
733:
728:
726:
721:
719:
717:
716:
710:
704:
700:
690:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
663:
661:
658:. Cheers. --
657:
656:Talk:Calcutta
653:
649:
629:
624:
620:
619:
618:
616:
613:
603:
601:
597:
587:
585:
582:
578:
568:
566:
562:
558:
545:
542:
537:
536:
532:
529:
524:
520:
519:
518:
516:
513:
502:
500:
496:
495:
494:Patriot Games
490:
480:
478:
474:
468:
465:
462:
449:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
439:
434:
429:
425:
423:
416:
411:
408:
406:
401:
390:
388:
377:
370:
366:
365:
363:
360:
356:
351:
350:
349:
348:
337:
334:
331:
329:
328:
327:
320:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
290:
287:
282:
277:
275:
270:
267:
261:
260:
259:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:
233:
230:
227:
224:
223:
222:
219:
216:
212:
206:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
179:
175:
172:
168:
163:
159:
151:
147:
143:
139:
134:
131:
126:
121:
118:
115:
112:
108:
104:
101:
97:
94:
93:
91:
88:
83:
79:
76:
75:
74:
72:
68:
63:
59:
55:
53:
43:
41:
36:
34:
19:
1134:
1090:
1072:
1048:
1029:
1028:
1023:
1016:
979:
958:
957:
952:
937:
900:
896:
894:
845:
825:
809:
795:
794:
789:
785:
780:
777:
773:fifth choice
772:
769:
764:
760:
758:
729:
722:
714:
713:
708:
699:His Holiness
698:
696:
669:
645:
609:
593:
574:
554:
508:
492:
486:
469:
466:
463:
460:
430:
426:
419:
409:
396:
383:
375:
369:user:zanimum
347:user:zanimum
343:
335:
332:
325:
323:
318:
313:
305:
301:
297:
296:rather than
293:
291:
285:
280:
278:
273:
271:
268:
265:
257:
255:
249:
245:
241:
220:
214:
207:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
177:
176:
171:His Holiness
170:
166:
161:
160:examples of
157:
155:
149:
145:
141:
137:
129:
102:
86:
70:
66:
64:
60:
56:
51:
49:
37:
30:
1017:Please see
683:talk:Zürich
387:Noah Peters
248:edit wars,
189:the style,
103:His Majesty
878:Μελ Ετητης
873:Mel Etitis
861:Μελ Ετητης
856:Mel Etitis
660:Necrothesp
600:Squiquifox
499:Necrothesp
218:people.
150:excellency
146:Excellency
142:Honourable
138:Excellency
106:abdicated.
71:explaining
829:Mackensen
816:Mackensen
732:Mackensen
701:style on
477:StanZegel
87:Venerable
40:muriel@pt
1095:That in
922:sjorford
905:sjorford
725:Emsworth
652:Calcutta
167:Holiness
1078:and at
1030:ÉIREANN
959:ÉIREANN
848:Adraeus
796:ÉIREANN
761:against
715:ÉIREANN
380:request
359:Proteus
326:ÉIREANN
258:ÉIREANN
203:explain
191:explain
1055:Smoddy
832:(talk)
819:(talk)
755:Voting
735:(talk)
679:Zurich
671:Zürich
565:Jooler
544:(talk)
531:(talk)
515:(talk)
362:(Talk)
52:styles
46:styles
1116:rule.
948:troll
448:Giano
438:Giano
422:Giano
393:peers
215:style
211:style
67:using
16:<
1141:Whig
1131:RfAr
1122:Adam
1084:Adam
1024:Fear
1013:Lulu
953:Fear
790:Fear
786:Slán
781:else
743:ugen
709:Fear
623:ugen
612:john
581:john
541:Noel
528:Noel
512:Noel
400:ugen
324:Fear
319:very
286:must
274:both
256:Fear
183:that
162:some
144:and
130:real
33:Mark
1045:RFC
925:→•←
908:→•←
901:"]"
899:or
897:"]"
471:in
281:all
250:all
246:all
242:all
199:use
187:use
158:few
747:64
685:.
627:64
563:.
404:64
880:)
875:(
863:)
858:(
615:k
584:k
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.