User talk:SqueakBox.html



This user is not an administrator.

Please don't think

that I'm airing our past disagreements for all to see, but I wanted to use it as an example to the IP. I'm afraid that even though I said I wasn't, I might have been treating the IP like a child anyway. :| Also, I agree with the second half of your statement, which I hope you don't mind that I took the liberty of removing an extra ; from. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:09 10 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. Could you maybe archive your talk page so that people don't have to wade through a very long TOC and a seemingly endless page?

The page locked trying to load, lol, sure it is time to archive. Mostly its young people who hold the rebel attitude, one would almost expect it whereas we middle age people tend to be much more conservative though I have to say even in my wildest days it was all anarchy and pot, the PPA beliefs didn't even cross my mind. My own belief is that predatory pedophiles online who groom minors etc are a serious threat to internet freedoms which is why I support PJ rather than PIE. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "young people who hold the rebel attitude" posting on your talk page and making it long, or arguing in defence of pædophilia? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:38 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The latter. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Hotmail edirect

When a site redirects to somewhere else do not restore the redirect, it makes us look sloppy and unprofessional. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That is true but the way Hotmail works is that it requires users to login first - hence the link you posted is for Windows Live ID instead and is specific to your own computer's particular session at that time. As noted by someonese else already, that link you provided contains many parameters specific to your own computer only, and not to other Wikipedia users. The "official" link for Hotmail is either Hotmail.com, Mail.live.com or Hotmail.live.com. When a user access one of these, it will determine automatically the parameters and redirects the user to the login page. There is nothing unprofessional about these links. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mills

Taking Mills' first marriage out of the Lead is a strange thing to do (being her first husband) because Alfie Karmal was then only referred to as Karmal in the whole article. I have fixed it. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not relevant to the opening where we do not put such info (except in gher case with PM because it was notable) and I have moved it lower down. the opening was full of info that should have been lower down and Iw as fixing it, it was much better before. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"she married Karm but they were divorced in 1991"?? I will fix it.--andreasegde (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What is going on here? I fixed your "On 6 May 1989 she married Karm but they were divorced in 1991 During this period" (divorce mentioned twice, and bad punctuation) and then you reverted it. Are you doing this on purpose just to annoy? Please stop it.--andreasegde (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course I am doing it on purpose, my purpose being to prevent useless clutter in the opening. This is not where unnotable marriages get mentioned. Please do not post with attitude on this page again. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Of course, I didn't see your section. Sometimes the arcane programming of this place can be frustrating.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It amused me you had sent a message with the same identical header like 3 days later. Its nice to see your good work here too. me I am off back to Old Blighty to bury my Granny before returning to my tropical home in a fortnight. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I lost my father in 2006; Please accept my (belated) condolences. --SSBohio 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a sad but not an unhappy occasion and gave me a rare opportunity to where a suit (see my user page) as well as return to Old Blighty for the first time in 5 years. Now back home again. Sorry to here about your father, both my parents are still alive and I am 10 years older than you. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Haile Selassie I of_Ethiopia#NPOV

Hi, this is just a heads up to let you know I removed the note you left on this talk page, after comments from an IP at AN/I. To put an end to the complaint entirely, I invoked WP:TALK, specifically the allowance for the removal of comments (redacted ones tagged as "trolling", or the original comments) if they do not concern the article at hand. Hope you don't mind. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 09:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I removed more material from a troll making ridiculous accusations of law breaking on the part of other editors. Not based on any evidence but just on a trolling mentality of not being able to cope with being disagreed with. I hope these issues can be resolved amicably as these kind of stupidities profoundly damage wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Central America

Hi I've begun working on the municipalities of Central America and creating some templates. I noticed you started many of the El Salvador and Honduran municipalitiwes which I'll be developing over the next few weeks like Apastepeque I did earlier. Howver could you do me a favor and move the articles out of brackets in Category:Departments of Guatemala, Category:Departments of Honduras and Category:Departments of Nicaragua to ..... Department. Its a standard naming convention. I moved some of the Guatemalan ones earlier but many can't be moved because of double redirects. Could you help me? E.g Totonicapán (department) should be Totonicapán Department. Everyone except Santa Rosa (Guatemalan department). ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh you can't do this because you arne't an admin? How come you aren't an admin??? Your;re probably thinking the same thing about me ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to become an admin either. I have more than enough responsibility in my real life. Back to CA tomorrow after 12 days back in Old Blighty. I will attend to your request when I return. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand thing

Hum, maybe there has been a little miscommunication, I thought that you had been convinced already by my arguments, because you didn't reply when I prodded the page for objections 3 months ago [1] and didn't reply either when Geni said that nobody appeared to have objections [2], and you didn't reply after I linked to the thread to say that I had consensus per WP:SILENCE [3]. It seems that I misinterpreted your comments, sorry for my clumsiness.

Also, I see that you really oppose the inclusion of the NZ expulsion in any form [4], [5].

Also, I see you didn't contest directly any of my arguments of how the event is actually notable [6] and you didn't give any suggerence at all regarding the sourcing, and didn't review the draft that I linked, and you didn't say anything about the scheme I proposed to address the weight issues (see the same diff as before).

You also didn't propose me any alternative way to write about the event, you just appear to plain oppose the inclusion in any form.

At this point I would normally start a discussion with the other editor (you, in this case) to try to find a solution acceptable for both. However, given past miscommunication, and the lack of objective arguments that I can counter, and the lack of actionable objections that I can mend, and that other editors appear to support the addition, and that I don't want to start a revert war, I think that the only realistic alternative that I have left is making either a survey or a RfC in order to present my arguments on a single place and check if I really have consensus for this addition. I hope you didn't mind. It's nothing personal, I just happen to think that these events are notable and relevant. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I opened a RFC here. Please participate on the discussion. Please remember that it's a discussion and not a poll, so you should state reasons of why you think the events are not relevant for inclusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, opposing inclusion in any form is what I have long advocated and have mentioned on the talk page. I have been a serious editor on this article for a long time and have noticed your participation more recently and will try to engage you more on the talk page. This is a wikipedia bio and we do not need this level of detail when it is such a clear BLP issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hum, could you add your comment under one of the sections instead of replying to the summary? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Que? I just did the same as you, there are 3 options, you support the first and I support the third, or were you reading my version before I fixed it almost immediately afterwards. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I read it right before you fixed :D Sometimes I take a long time before replying because I open a few pages at the same time on different tabs and then I read them in order. Sorry for not noticing that you fixed it. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a way shorter version of the draft. This should remove all the appeareance of gossip. Please say if this version could be suitable for inclusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, when that New Zealand RfC ends, I see that I'll have to open a new one for the US thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

one should suffice. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mick Jagger's parents

I'm curious as to why you feel his mother's date of birth should be stated and not his father's? Tom Green (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted, I was unaware of her mother's info too, and this should also certainly be removed for the same reason. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm baaack...!

Heya Squeak,

I wanted to thank you for your welcome back to Wikipedia. I will admit at first I was not sure how to take that line, as genuine or sarcastic, but then I realized that the thought itself was a holdover from before and in violation of Assuming Good Faith. I accept that it was truly and genuinely intended, and for that I genuinely thank you.

That said, I would also like to note that, as mentioned in email during the ban, I got a disturbing email during that ban. You know that I hate admitting when I am wrong, but I was terribly naive in believing that there was no true "organized" PPA movement. I'm disappointed with society in general, but after receiving an email offering to help me set up multiple more accounts so that "we" could continue our work... That was a bad day.

Anyway, you were right, and I see that now. I still think that your efforts are sometimes too extreme in one direction, but I have come to understand that it's nothing more than a difference in methodology. I hope to be able to build on those moments when you and I were working well together and dsregard those moments when we fought.

Lastly, I notced awhile back that you had made some minor changes to your profile page that had the potential to be read as troubling, and I just wanted to let you know that I did notice and hope that it was nothing more than simplifying the language on the page and not indicative of any negative events in your life. On the other hand, I wish you the best and that if anything is difficult going, that it looks up soon.

Take Care, {{subst:User:VigilancePrime/Templates/Signature}} (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Rastafari - Q.E.D.

I think you should be aware, a certain editor has just listed Rastafari, as well as Persecution of Rastafari, at the "Fringe theory noticeboard" which is one of Wikipedia's uglier aspects, if not the very ugliest, since that is the place where a bunch of POV admins decide what ideas or hypotheses they consider "heresy" and therefore nobody is supposed to use wikipedia to learn much about them.

Regarding Rastafari, he wrote "The article is a treasure trove of bullshit" - citing as evidence, the fact that it mentions people of many races follow Rastafari. He also asks if perceived persecution is a "legitimate phenomenon". I am pretty sure Wikipedia policy prohibits him from making these kind of blatant attacks on other people's belief systems. Blockinblox (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The fringe theory noticeboard exists to prevent people from using Wikipedia to promote pseudoscience, such as homeopathy.

I mention that the racial claim is dubious, because Rastafari is a black nationalist movement. This would seem to suggest either one of two things: Either there are whites who are "proud that other people are black" (dubious) or there is a distinction between the black nationalist Rastafarians and their non-black counterparts? I don't doubt that there are white people and people of other races in America and Europe who claim to be Rastafarians, but the failure to distinguish these people from other other Rastafarians and the failure to even provide a source for their existence is absurd. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Rastafari movement

First of all, aside from these quotes, take a look at how much stuff there is actually sourced. There are a lot of outrageous claims made with no sources there. Aside from that, would you say that these quotes here are appropriate for a Wikipedia article?

The messages expounded by the Rastafari promote love and respect for all living things and emphasize the paramount importance of human dignity and self-respect. Above all else, they speak of freedom from spiritual, psychological, as well as physical slavery and oppression. In their attempts to heal the wounds inflicted upon the African peoples by the imperialist nations of the world, Rastafari continually extol the virtue and superiority of African cultures and civilization past and present.

Characterizing America and the nation of Europe as the "imperialist nations of the world," is a bit POV, don't you think?

...in the 1930s, black people were at the bottom of the social order, while white people, their religion and system of government, were at the top.

On what basis do we call all the governments and religions of the 1930's "white"? Again, this opinion isn't sourced or attributed.

Rastas say that scientists try to discover how the world is by looking from the outside in, whereas the Rasta approach is to see life from the inside, looking out.

OK. Source?

In 1934 Leonard Howell was the first Rasta to be persecuted, being charged with sedition for refusing loyalty to the King of England George V.

Rastafari is not a highly organized religion; it is a movement and an ideology. Many Rastas say that it is not a "religion" at all, but a "Way of Life"

This quote is sourced. Similarly, I could derive another quote. On page 1 of Essential Buddhism by Jacky Sach, she says, "Just calling Buddhism a religion can cause argument, as many believe Buddhism to be an entire way of life." Putting this statement in the Buddhism article, though, would be as dubious as putting it here. The statement, "It's not a religion, it's a way of life," is a horrible cliche that has been used by countless groups to promote their beliefs as somehow being less narrowminded and more practical than others. In both cases here, we're not citing any particular facts about Rastafari or Buddhism; the claim "way of life," is merely a very common expression made by lots of people about their own beliefs.

The article is a soapbox. As you said, "it does not preswent rastafari as fact but it does present what rastas believe in".

Rather than presenting what Rastafari is from an objective perspective, 90% of the article is just rambling on about what Rastafarians say Rastafari is, without citations or with poor citations. Without attributing these opinions or providing citations for their origin, or by having poor citations, that is misleading. Imagine what the article on Christianity would look like if we allowed this there. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that a certain editor has removed many sources from the rastafari articles, doubtless with the intention of creating articles that appear dubious. I'll see what i can do. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Part of the problem"?

If you want to post on my user page do not insult me, I have not read your last post beyond the first sentence but you can refactor it if you want, otherwise go away and don't post here again. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for being a bit belligerent. I took a look at your contributions and you seem relatively fair. [7] I falsely assumed from your claim above that you were of the same mindset as Til (i.e., everybody's out to get Rasta, everybody on Wikipedia's a racist, etc..). You seem reasonable, though, so I hope I didn't poison the well! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the whole atmosphere is quite poisonous on the Rasta articles, and I am not really up for that at the moment. I am a religious sceptic ideologically who believes it is important to get these articles neutral and not based on religious convictions of any sort. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, please do not put words in my mouth, or ascribe to me sentiments that I have never once epressed "(i.e., everybody's out to get Rasta, everybody on Wikipedia's a racist, etc..)". I know it would make arguments much easier if you could do that (it's called a strawman fallacy), but I do wish you would stop telling people that I am saying something that I don't even think. I can, and do, speak for myself. Thanks. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Til is an editor I am long familiar with. The editor I have issues with is Bulbous, whom Til let me know about as an editor a while back and I do not see Til as part of any pro rasta editing of the article, that comes, I believe, from new editors with a rasta POV, just as the anti-rasta POV comes from anti-Rastafarian Christians inspired by Christafari and others to try to convert Rastas to Christ. They are interested in the Haile Selassie I article because they know that Haile selassie I is loved by Rastas, and they portray him positively but as a man. Whereas I think the Selassie article should deal with him both as a political figure and as the god of the rastafari movement, not because I have any agenda about wheter he is God but because I recognize that he is both a political and a religious figure in 2008 and has been so for a long time. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to see what you mean... The said editor is now again pursuing his evidently hostile bias at Haile Selassie, by trimming the factual references and mention of the Rastafari movement in the leade to the barest minimum, with the argument that it is "promoting" Rastafari by giving it "too much mention" in the lead. Man, I really hate stuff like that! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Change

One person cannot outweigh the strength of the social clusters, the mobs which collect around articles. And one person or even one mob cannot outweigh the strength of the hive-mind. All I can do, much of the time, is laugh at the futility of it.

ARTICLE I'VE DEALT WITH: SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM

• Fractional-reserve banking: Libertarian ideology is Fact. The Federal Reserve is an evil money-printing conspiracy. Only money backed by GOOOOLD is trustworthy!
• Austrian economics: Austrian economics >= Keynesianism
• Global warming: Global warming doesn't exist and even if it does exist, humans aren't responsible.
• Rastafari movement: Ya, mon, Rasta eez all about da peez n luv, mon
• Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo: She has never been involved in any financial or sexual scandals of any kind. She is a very compassionate and wise guru.
• Homeopathy: Homeopathy is valid science. Mainstream science is what's "pseudoscientific."
• Cannabis: THC is actually a vitamin. It's good for you. Jesus smoked it. It's all in the Bible, dude

As you can see, I have failed at improving pretty much every article I try to work on, largely because I try to focus on the articles which need the most work (as opposed to flooding Wikipedia with fancruft, which is very easy).

So, yes, it is futile. I don't expect to be able to improve the article on Rastafari. But I still try anyway, because it's enjoyable and meaningful. It's the same story as the Bhagavad Gita: Whether I fight or surrender, either way I lose. But I should still keep up with it anyway, for the sake of dharma. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I cut my teeth on Javier Solana which had been written from a "perhaps he is the anti-Christ" perspective and after lots of hard work managed to get an article that is a political biography, and that has remained pretty stable. I am certainly aware of the issues on the cannabis article, and while there it is both pro and anti lobbies who create a problem the pro lobby is the stronger, and in the Rastafari article both pro and anti Rasta POV pushing is, IMO, evident. I do like the Rastas for their resilient optimism. Intelligent design is another classic example of POV pushing and I appreciate the problem. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Barry George

I am not sure why you are so worried about which categories the Barry George article is listed under. The facts are that he has been found guilty in the courts of attempted rape, indecent assault, and impersonating a constable. I am not sure whether any convictions arose from other incidents which have been reported, such as possession of an offensive weapon, not that it matters as far as this point is concerned. As far as I understand it any person who has been convicted by a jury of attempted rape and has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment is, without question, a criminal. The fact that he is not also a murderer, and that he was imprisoned for so long for a crime of which he was innocent, does not mean that he has been cleared of his past convictions.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The poin t you are missing is that he is not notable based on these crimes to have had a wikipedia biography by any stretch of the imagination. He is only notabole for his wrong conviction. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not missing that point at all. It has already occurred to me that if he had not been wrongfully convicted of one crime the general public would probably never have heard of him and the crimes of which he was actually guilty. However, people are not categorised only according to what they are notable for. Gordon Brown is not notable because he was born in 1951. He is notable for something else and it is also true that he was born in 1951. George W. Bush is not notable for being a recipient of the Star of Romania Order, or indeed for his business activities or his English and Dutch ancestry. He is notable for being a politician and he is put in those categories because they also apply to him.

I just utterly fail to see how anybody, except you, clearly, could imagine that it is inappropriate to put a convicted attempted rapist in the category of "criminal" because somebody might think that Wikipedia is accusing him of murder! The article clearly sets out the reasons for which he is correctly deemed a criminal. Anybody looking at it would be able to say, "Hmm. It says he is a criminal. But he is not guilty of that murder. Aha! He committed attempted rape, indecent assault, impersonating a constable, for all of which he received either a prison sentence, a suspended sentence, or a fine, and it says he was caught with a knife, which is a crime, though maybe it never resulted in anything. Well, there you have it, he is a criminal, but not a murderer."--Oxonian2006 (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are using sophist arguemnts to justify a BLP violation, and to imply that the overturning is incorrect, a view clearly held by the police etc, and to attack me makes you rather borish, please desist if you wish to post here again. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I'm boorish. It's not something I have ever been accused of before. You also think I am attacking you. I'm certainly not making a personal attack. I'm just questioning your judgement, which is something I do all the time. It does not mean that I don't hold in high esteem the people whose judgements I question. You make three allegations, none of which is correct:

• My arguments are sophistic. They are not. I am making a very straightforward, logical argument, which has at the heart of it the fact that the statements I am making contain no logical contradictions, and that my conclusions derive necessarily from premises that even you accept as true.
• I am trying to justify a violation of the rules concerning biogrpahies of living persons. No such violation has taken place. I have merely asserted facts.
• I am trying to imply that the jury in the first trial reached the correct decision. Why on earth would I do that? I don't think the jury in the first trial did reach the right decision. I have always, ever since he became involved in the case, been convinced that he was innocent. I am utterly convinced that he had no involvement at all in the murder of Jill Dando. The courts have shown that he is innocent of that charge.

I shall copy this to the Barry George talk page and suggest it is better to continue the discussion there.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

di Stefano

I've tagged the sentence you insist on with a fact tag for now, and added a section on the talk page. I suggest you discuss the matter there rather than go further over 3RR since you are already at 4 reverts. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, 5 reverts. a fortiori, please take it to talk. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You appear not to have read 3rr either as 2 completely different edits are not considered identical in 3rr. If you have a proposal that does not involve a BLP violation and an NPOV violation I will happily consider it but implying that a living person cannot enter the US on the strength of these ancient refs is not appropriate. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you discuss it on the talk page since many editors do not think that either a) there is any implication that he cannot enter or b) do not think that implication is strong enough to matter or c) do not think that there is a BLP problem. Going over 3rr and then refusing to discuss it with other editors is really not a good idea when there are a variety of editors who have a good faith disagreement about what is a BLP issue. I'm not going to go into the issues about your misuse of the term trolling or your mischaracterization of the refs as "ancient" or the irrelevancy of the age of the refs. Also, I suggest you refamiliarize yourself with 3RR. From WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." The last sentence is the relevant one. You have reverted 3 different editors a total of 5 times. I suggest you comment at the general discussion. In general, you've acted repeatedly like you own this article. If you are unwilling to engage in discussion with the other editors, I suggest you may want to back off and work on something else. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The cite needed tag is entirely correct. We do need a ref, I am the first to admit. 2 completely different edits are not treated as one Thanks, SqueakBox 14:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree on the first part. I'm confused by what you mean by the second. Could you expand upon that? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding a sentence is nott he same as removing a p[aragraph, theya re entirely different edits whose only common theme was the NPOV goal. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence you added was nearly identical to the sentence which was removed earlier. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? No, what i added was that he has been able ot re-enter teh US, what i removed is the bit about him having allegedly not been able to enter the US in the past, 2 very different things. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should stop using pronouns and general comments and point to specific difs. [8] - I remove the unsourced claim that he has been in the United States. You add back the unsourced claim that he has since been allowed into the US (reversion 1). you add that claim back in again (reversion 2). you blank the section. you again blank the section (reversion 3). you again blank the section (reversion 4). you add in the claim that he has since gone into the United States with an edit summary saying explicitly that you will not discuss the matter on the article talk page (reversion 5). That's 5, 5 reversions. Count von Count might be happy but Wikipedia policy sad. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I stick to my belief that blanking the section and adding to the section were 2 fundamentally different strategies to approaching the same problem and therefore could not be considered as part oft he same 3rrviolation. I do not believe that any article is worht breaking 3rr and possible losing edit privileges temporarily over and therefore do my best to avoid doing that, and certainkly was aware of what I was doing here and did not and do not feel it was a 3rr violation, indeed I was being more creative than your average 3rr reverter by trying to offer 32 different solutions to the problem, one being my addition and the other being to blank the section. Thanks, SqueakBox

you comment did not match your edit

Your comment did not match your . QuackGuru 03:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Err, yes they did. He is well known as the founder of wikipedia and your OR claim was simply off the wall, though I recognize it was not malicious trolling, as were Bramlet's edits to the page. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they did not. Your comment was in contradiction to your edit.

You wrote: Absolutely. Thanks,

Your comment was in response to my comment. I wrote: Can someone fix the revisionism and rewriting of history.

Your comment gave the misleading impression that you agreed with me but your edit was in disagreement.

Jimmy Wales cannot be the sole founder of Wikipedia when Larry Sanger is the co-founder. I'm sure you are aware of the Larry Sanger article. Co-founder is clearly stated in the first sentence and it is referenced. We cannot not rewrite history on Wikipedia. BTW, Jimmy Wales was interviewed back in 20001 by The New York Times. There is no dispute over the facts and revisionism is rewriting history. QuackGuru 16:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Quack, your invoking logic that because (in your opinion) Wales cannot be sole founder (which it doesn't say anyway) because Sanger was supposedly co-founder is a very good example of original research, and remember this article is not about Wales, it is about someone else. I have already asked Bramlet for a source that the co-founder dispute has a direct connection with this lady and none has been forthcoming, so really you add an OR template where it is you and Bramlet who are engaging in the OR. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it original research that Larry Sanger is the co-founder. Rewriting history is revisionism.

The article is not about Wales and there is no evidence that Wales has anything to do with that article. Nothing is referenced to Wales. Why is it in the article. Please provide a reference that Wales is somehow connected to the lady or the article or remove Wales and the orginal research from the article. Please provide a source to verify the current text or remove Wales from the article. QuackGuru 16:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really a satisfactory solution but I have removed Wales from the article for the time being. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I could not find a reference to verify the current text and this was a quick solution until references can be provided. QuackGuru 16:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are anyway questions of notability, a list of speakers at The Global Creative Leadership Summit is hardly content for a biography, IMO, and could be seen as promoting the subject. I suspect I need to look very carefully at the appropriateness of Wales being linked to in all the main space where his article is linked to. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The question I have is, would an editor add Wales to a biography just to make the biography look better. Was Wales really a speaker at The Global Creative Leadership Summit. Is there any other articles where someone added Wales to the article but Wales has nothing to do with that article. I'm not sure. We WP:AGF with Wikipedians but at the same time we must verifiy the text. QuackGuru 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

your edit did not match your edit summary

You edit summary was lets just avoid controversy. You falsely claimed that Wales founded Wikipedia in 2001. You add controversial text. You edit summary was incorrect. Please read the references. QuackGuru 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want controversy in the lead then don't create controversy in the lead.[9][10] Wales co-founded Wikipedia in 2001. I'm sure you have read the references. It is very clear the facts are accurate. QuackGuru 19:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Its anything but clear, its very controversial. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The controversy is revisionism, not co-founder. The text is verified and correct. QuackGuru 18:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO the opposite is true, you have found some refs and are writing history based on these refs but we could equally use other refs to say basically what I am saying, which is anyway less specific, merely because there are refs re co-founder does not make it the unalterable truth, that is revisionism. What i do think is unacceptable is nay mention of Sanger in the opening, it makes him put to be much more important in Wales life than is really the case, and this is simply a distortion of the reality. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I explained this to you before. We can't rewrite history. There are historical references such as The New York Times that clearly state Jimmy Wales is the co-founder. QuackGuru 18:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean we cant rewrite history? you are trying to write history, IMO, and that is what we should not do. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is evidence of the original history of the Jimmy Wales article. Wales would have had read at least some of the early articles on Wikipedia. Wales was interviewed during the early years of Wikipedia and press coverage articles described both as co-founders. From 2001 - 2004, Wales never disputed the co-founder issue and even Wikipedia's own press releases described both Wales and Sanger as the founders of Wikipedia.[11][12][13] Rewriting the historical facts is revisionism. QuackGuru 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

THis is no evidence that he is considered co-founder in 08/08, merely that he was historically considered so and tyhis doesn't need to be in the opening. Do you agree that Sanger is not notable enough to be in the opening of Wales' article? For me this is an important point. Thanks, SqueakBox00:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a commonly known historical fact the Wales co-founded Wikipedia in 2001 and that is what the article says. We write articles according to the facts and not what Wales likes are does not like. If you want to remove Larry Sanger from the lead you would have to rewrite the first part of the sentence because Wales did not create Wikipedia on his own. We would problably have to remove the word created. QuackGuru 01:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is simply not so Quack. What is commonly known is that Wales founded it with others in 2001, nobody has heard of Sanger and he needs to be removed from the opening, given this I am happy to go for a 3rd solution. Thanks, SqueakBox14:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is simply not so QuackGuru? "Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger helped found Wikipedia. Wales has supplied the financial backing and other support for the project, and Sanger, who earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Ohio State in 2000, has led the project."

Nobody had ever heard of Larry Sanger in 2001? Me thinks The New York Times heard of both of the founders of Wikipedia in 2001."I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean up my one paragraph," said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales. (He also works as the editor in chief of another online encyclopedia, Nupedia, which relies on a more traditional system of peer-review editing to assemble its contents.)

Back in 2000 people heard of Larry Sanger. In 2000 Nupedia: Officially opened last week, the Nupedia Web site seeks to become "the world's largest encyclopedia," according to Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief.

We already have an 3rd solution/opinion on this matter.

Here is some more facts for you to read. Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001. The initial purpose was to get the public to add entries that would then be “fed into the Nupedia process” of authorization. Most of Nupedia’s expert volunteers, however, wanted nothing to do with this, so Sanger decided to launch a separate site called “Wikipedia.” Neither Sanger nor Wales looked on Wikipedia as anything more than a lark. This is evident in Sanger’s flip announcement of Wikipedia to the Nupedia discussion list. “Humor me,” he wrote. “Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes.” And, to Sanger’s surprise, go they did. Within a few days, Wikipedia outstripped Nupedia in terms of quantity, if not quality, and a small community developed. In late January, Sanger created a Wikipedia discussion list (Wikipedia-L) to facilitate discussion of the project.

I have answered all of your questions and provided references to support the text and there is agreement for the current version. QuackGuru 17:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is evidence from the people who were there in the very beginning and I have provided many references to verify the current text. QuackGuru 17:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this compromise? leave any mention of sanger out of the beginning but include something like wales co-founded wikipedia but not who with, that can easily be mentioned lower down and is a reasonable compromise. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your did not match your compromise. You did not mention it lower down in the body of the article. The word created is original research. It gives the false impression Wales is the sole founder. Maybe if we changed it to provided support for [Wikipedia] it could fix the WP:OR and at the same time we are staying faithful to the source. QuackGuru 19:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops? Please explain what you mean by whoops. Did you make a mistake in your recent edit. QuackGuru 21:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit did not match the source. It failed verifiaction. QuackGuru 22:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My mistake was to assume it was in the main body of the text. I will fix it, hopefully when I get home, as I ma very busy right now. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit failed verification and I made a suggestion to fix it. We are discussing two things here. The lead has a mistake that failed verfication and your did not match your compromise. This may take another year for us to fix this at the pace we are going. No worries. I'm very patient. I look forward to your edit to try and reach a compromise. We can this by working together. Wikipedians are a can do people. Together we can create featured articles. QuackGuru 22:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it would be great to get Wales to featured status. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The first step is WP:GA status. It took me about a year for Larry Sanger. It would be nice if both articles were featured articles together. QuackGuru 23:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC Page

Hi. I am assuming good faith in your edit and I assume it was a mistake. However, please take a look at my edits, after reverting the vandalism last night I brought back your corrections. Then you reverted me and brought back the vandalism [14].

I assume this was a mistake on your part since you seem to know your way around here quite well.

Let me know if there are any questions or if I have made a mistake.

Colombiano21 (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we can assume good faith with each other, its been a nightmare page over the last few days due to general trolling, feel free to remove nay further vandalism. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by User LAVIDALOCA

I have removed unsourced quotes on a number of articles under strict BLP and been labelled a snot puppet by this user who is now undoing all my edits. Can you please assist? NoNameMaddox (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The above editor is suspected of being a sock puppet of User:ColScott. Things are underway to request a checkuser on the account. LaVidaLoca (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspected that this account was a sockpuppet of User: Daniel Brandt and he deleted the caption from his page. Does he get spanked?NoNameMaddox (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

For me what is important is the quality of the encyclopedia, I have taken a look at one case and will look at others as time allows. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well sorted out a few glaring problems. LaVidaLoca (como que?) appears to think others shoukld do his work for him as if we were a cult with a hierarchy instead of a bunch of volunteers enjoying a hobby. Thanks, SqueakBox

LOL. It speaks for itself. LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You what? I suspect you have not got a clue what I was talking about and my comment most certainly was not directed at you. Thanks, SqueakBox 12:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand addition to GDS article

There was this RFC on adding the New Zealand to the article where several editors didn't agree with your assesment of it being a BLP and NPOV violation, so please don't make unilateral removals based on your personal opinion, like you did here (except for Hg2, who made a comment about the fingerprint. I'm not sure if his comment was rendered moot when the fingerprint thing was stripped from the draft). If you want the addition removed then go to the next step of WP:DR dispute resolution instead of removing it because you don't like how the RFC went. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not my personal opinion and a small cabal of editors do not trump either BLP or NPOV, especially given the history of the article. I have little opinion on the Rfc and nor am I interested in initiating dispute resolution. Telling me to wait before removing this material for a dispute resolution case is to fundamentally mis-characterize our BLP policy, the offending material needs to be removed while any further dispute resolution takes place. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't agree that this is a BLP violation, and I want to pursue dispute resolution. I find that the paragraph is well sourced, relevant, and has gathered consensus that the current version is not a BLP vio. Precisely, I opened a RFC so people outside the "small cabal" would give a fresh opinion. Look, I don't want to go all the way to arbcom, would you agree to make a formal meditation to ask whether this is a BLP vio and abide by the decision of the mediator? I will also abide by the mediator decision if it's against inclusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I certainly agree that it is very unfortunate you cannot see the BLP violation. I think it is extremely unlikely that the arbcom would agree to take on this case, and if they did they would probably agree with me that this is a completely unacceptable BLP violation, further winding up someone who is already so pissed off they are threatening to sue wikipedia. Why don't we just leave it out and respect di Stefano, we are here to write an encyclopedia and that does not mean adding this type of material completely unnecessarily merely because some rag newspapers have, wuithout verifiabilty, reported it as an allegation14:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

I am not willing to agree to any mediation conclusions that violate BLP but if you want to initiate mediation I will give it my full consideration. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll start a mediation request tomorrow. Too tired today. You can read the mediation request and decide if you want to accept participating on it or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bueno. Send me the link when you have done it please, I am more than happy to participate but not to abide by any decision that violates our BLP policy. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm.... well... the mediation would be to see if the addition was really a BLP violation or not. Seeing your answer, I'm not sure if it's going to work, but I'm going to open it anyways. Maybe we can work this out. scratch that, I just checked the "common reasons for rejection" before filing the case, and, regretably, it's painfully clear to me that it's either going to be rejected or going to fail miserabily. See "mediation is voluntarily initiated by the parties, and relies on the willingness of the parties to abide by the agreement reached" and also "All parties must come to mediation with the understanding that both sides will have to compromise to reach an agreement (...)".

Seeing this, and seeing that you are not willing to compromise, I'm going to have to ask you that you stop trying to impose your view of BLP and NPOV on the article by removing sourced info that was put throught a RFC in order to remove all BLP issues and make it as neutral as possible, or I'll have to bring the case to Arbcom so that a binding decision is reached. (Additionally, a preemptive warning: notice that, while WP:BLP says that BLP vios "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", which is very correct, this particular edit has already undergone lots of discussion, and many editors have already stated that they don't agree with you that this edit happens to be a BLP vio, so please don't use that argument to remove it again). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I will not reach an agreement that I am not willing to agree to. A sign of good faith would be to remove the offending material while the mediation is undergoing and I will likely make that, not anything else, a requirement of mediation. This stuff is serious. Que le vaya bien, SqueakBox 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

pues hazlo, o sea actualizice tu amenaza de los arbcom y vamos a ver porq esto no es de buen fe por actualizar mediación, vos. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to open a mediation request unless you explicitely state that are willing to accept its outcome even if it goes against your position. Willingness by all parties to accept the outcome a pre-requisite for the request to be accepted by the mediation cabal, and don't really see the point in opening a request knowing that a)it will be rejected and b)the other party has stated that if it doesn't like the outcome he's just going to not accept it. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that we can go for mediation on the basis that if we do reach an agreement we stick to it but that there is a possibility that we will not reach an agreement. If you go to arbcom that is also okay by me, this isn't a personal dispute, its about Di Stefano. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That basis looks good to me. The idea is that, if we can't reach an agreement on mediation, then we should ask Arbcom as a last recourse to decide if BLP allows or not that entry. I'll open the mediation request tomorrow, as today I'm doing some other stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

mediation request, please check it and, if you accept it, sign under "Parties' agreement to mediate". --Enric Naval (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

check the talk page of the mediation, I made my argument there. Please add your arguments too, so the mediator can check them. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please check the list of issues on dispute that I made. Excuses on advance if I made some wrong assumption about you, please point out any errors so I can correct them. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Before signing additional issue 1, I'll wait to see what the mediator says about expanding the mediation to expand the other BLP issues (I suppose that User:Wizardman will be the mediator). Maybe it will cause the mediation to be too long and complicated, with so many issues that need to be examined, I don't know. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

About removing again the same thing, as stated by other editors, you have failed to convince other editors that this is actually a BLP vio. If it's such an obvious vio, then you won't have any problem proving it on the mediation case. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read the BLP article it fits like a glove, I am confused as to how you can think otherwise. And your claim that I haven't convinced other editors is betrayed by the facts. And most importantly, BLP is not decided by consensus anyway, it is decided by sticking to a strict interpretation of the policy. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you should argue this on the mediation case, now that Wizardman has finally appeared on its talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I already have argued this, in my statement at mediation talk. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Regarding reliability of sources, while you are technically correct to write, regarding this edit that "a forum is not RS," the guidelines specifically states that such sources are "largely" not acceptable, stressing that exceptions are evident: "[such sources] may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article..." In this case, the writer is Rich Johnston, writing from personal knowledge (gained through interviews with the primary people in question: Moore and Gaiman). I understand that the guidelines do however strongly advise against use of the sources when BLP concerns are evident, particularly when it is "negative information." This point is not negative against a particular person (although it could arguably paint the DC of the 1980s in a somewhat poor light, albeit one dictated by contract law). I presume that you have no problem with the information, and merely the source, however, so I'll put some effort in to re-sourcing that and everyone will be happy. ntnon (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Finding a better source sounds like a good idea to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion at Talk:Chiropractic, to explain your revert. Note that many of these changes have already been discussed or are under discussion on the talk page. Your edit changes sentences so that they assert, as if it's fact, that chiropractic theories are "antiscientific" and "ethically suspect", as opposed to the previous wording which merely asserted that these things have been said by researchers. See WP:NPOV which says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (emphasis in the original). When reverting good-faith edits, please explain your edit in the edit summary or give a link to related talk page discussion which explains it; otherwise it could be interpreted that you're implying the edit you're reverting was vandalism. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Those are really cute chipmunk pictures. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They are El C's pics. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Chiropractic

Re this edit: I agree with the change, but it would be helpful to discuss the change instead of simply making the edit, as some of it is controversial. Could you please join the discussion at Talk:Chiropractic #Gallup poll, Talk:Chiropractic #Request for Comment: Excluding treatment reviews, and Talk:Chiropractic #Error in summarizing Canadian surveys? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And Talk:Chiropractic#NPOV. Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

di Stefano article edit summary

Please don't leave edit summaries in non-english languages for controversial information removals etc.

I have reverted as I can't tell for sure why you did it. Please don't do that again. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. As I live in a Spanish speaking country I occasionally get my languages muddled, and the comment was to a Spanish person, but you are certainly right. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you already know but...

..you are close to violating 3RR on Neil Goldschmidt, and if you continue I will block you. Also note that you can be blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR. I ask that you take your concerns to the talk page opposed to warring on the mainpage. Please, think of how damaging it is to the article. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 23:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Need some help with Neil Goldschmidt, this user appears to be the sock of an already blocked user. I believe RCU has been requested via arbcom (following general arbcom instructions in this PAW area). I am sure you apopreciate that blocked users do not have editing rights on wikipedia. Please see the comment on the 4th item on this list. My guess is this is the same user. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, maybe there is more here than meets the eye. If in fact you were reverting a banned/previously blocked user than you have my apologies for the warning above. I will attempt to take a closer look and see if there is anything I can do to help. Tiptoety ^talk 23:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Your point is also well taken that edit warring is bad for the encyclopedia full stop. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alan Moore

Please return to entry and help me with the editor who wishes to use gossip site as source.Allknowingallseeing (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please join me at my talk page. User JasonAQuest is wikistalking and claiming personal attacks when there are none. Allknowingallseeing (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Giovanni Di Stefano. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm...

Fair enough...I'll accept the rebuke. I would appreciate your removal of your final comment (21:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC), and suggest that in the future before you delete my remarks that you contact me first. Hag2 (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually you just need to not make such comments in the first place. Do not put it on me to have to justify myself when it is you who has disrupted the mediation process with your bad faith incivility. It is not wanted. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Alton Ellis

I still haven't seen a single reliable source stating that Alton has passed away. I think we should wait until we have this before making any changes.--Michig (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, reverted myself at Deaths in 2008 once I had read the ref. Good work. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My complaint against Bulbous

Have you seen this? I mentioned your name as having experienced his ad hominems and trolling in the past.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bulbous

Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Carter

I don't agree with moving this to Stephen Carter (politician). If there were no other Stephen Carters on Wikipedia then yes I would agree he's better known by this name so it should just be at Stephen Carter. However, as we need some form of disambiguation, this should be Stephen Carter, Baron Carter of Barnes. It is not the same case as Jeffrey Archer, as his name doesn't need disambiguating. Better examples are Douglas Hogg, 3rd Viscount Hailsham who is never known as Viscount Hailsham, but needs it for disambiguation; and maybe Tony Banks, Baron Stratford who was only a lord for a very brief period of time, and was at Tony Banks (politician) until he was enobled. The consensus is usually that we should avoid using a term in parenthesis for disambiguation if there's another way of doing it.

Anyway, this isn't a question of whether he's known as Stephen Carter or Lord Carter of Barnes; it's a question of whether the titles needs disambiguating, which it does. Even if the peerage version is used as the title, it does still say "Stephen Carter" as part of the title. I'll await your comments before moving it back. JRawle