User talk:Mackensen/Archive6

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

Thanks for your support

Hi Mackensen, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was pleased to see so much support, especially from people such as you who I do not know very well, if at all. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TOCleft

There are certainly times when having the TOC floating left is useful, but many times it seems to be done simply because users disagree with the standard Wikipedia formatting. Having the TOC located where it is was a conscious decision. The TOC and white space is deliberately designed to break the article into two sections. This was much debated when the TOCs were first introduced, but it is now a standard. Users who disagree with this standard are free to raise the issue on the village pump, or the can alter their style sheet to display all TOCs to their liking. - SimonP 01:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

On the specific issue of Benjamin Disraeli, the TOC floating is a problem on my 800x600 resolution, which is the resolution used by a majority of web users, because it creates a thin seven character wide column of text between the TOC and infobox. - SimonP 01:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Where do you feel it should be moved? The policy page actually explicitly states that "if the TOC is placed in the general vicinity of other floated images or boxes, it can be floated as long as the flowing text column does not become narrower than 30% of the average user's visible screen width." This would entail moving it below the infobox, and rearranging the images. - SimonP 01:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Mackensen, I just added a note to SimonP's talk page regarding TOCleft usage, although it's not directly in response to any of your comments. Also I'd like to thank you for the links to the documentation that you included in that discussion; they helped me understand the differing opinions about the use of the floating TOCs. Thanks, LiniShu 18:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richest British politicians

Dear Mackensen I would ask that you leave the links to officeholders from Richest British politicians as this is significant information on the class structure of British politics, the financial concerns of officeholders etc. It is not at all clear that someone would think to search for this, and so if they are to find it, the links are necessary. Polycarp Dear Mackensen Why don't we trust the reader to deal with the "facts". This info is taken from the "Dictionary of National Biography", to which I am a paid subscriber. Are you saying that your standards are higher than theirs? Are you to be the judge of what facts should be released to the public? Polycarp

Dear Mackensen I won't waste too much more of your time and mine. About your points, 1) probate time doesn't relate to career--well the links I provided will enable the discerning reader to determine the time lapse; I used probate as I don't know of another source giving wealth-there is some data in contemporary almanacks about the income of aristocrats, but the info on businessmen is sketchy. This leads to your second point-the distinction between earned vs unearned income: well the links will often provide the info as to the source of the wealth, but there is a certain democracy in the #'s. I believe it is of value to know the relative wealth of businessmen like the newsagent Smith with contemporaries like the Duke of Richmond. As to providing inflation adjusted #'s, if you can point me to a reliable table of British figures with adjustments for each year, I might take a stab at providing them. As to scale, I included Cecil Rhodes and Beaverbrook as comparisons. Perhaps I could add a few more press barons and businessmen. Polycarp

Birthday

User:Jenmoa/birthday --User:Jenmoa 20:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of Scottish peers?

I notice that William Gordon, 6th Viscount of Kenmure was recently moved to William Gordon, 6th Viscount Kenmure. If you recall, there was a bit of discussion over this (though I can't find it), eventually leading to a note on Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia#Titles of Scottish peers. This is by no means universal; for instance, see John Gordon, 1st Viscount of Kenmure. Is this an erroneous move? grendel|khan 05:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Earldoms/Questionable

You created List of Earldoms/Questionable in December, 2004, and describe it as a temp page at Talk:List of Earldoms. Is it still needed, and if so, can it be merged or moved somewhere? Subpages are generally expected not to be permanent; see Wikipedia:Subpages. Let me know if I can help with merging, etc. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I redirected it. Chick Bowen 02:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Thank you for the note earlier on the "list of white supremacists" AfD. Please keep me posted whenever you find an article that needs to be deleted. BTW, if you have time, please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2. Regards, 172 09:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Babel

Could you consider adding this template to your userpage? It is very helpful in case translators are needed and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dawn16

This user definitely needs keeping an eye on. In addition to vandalizing Bush and Mariah Carey, they vandalized Obesity and rather suspiciously created User:Salma L just to call it a sockpuppet. --Angr (t·c) 14:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Succession box

Hey, I've made a proposal for a change in how we do succession boxes for British figures over at the page linked above. Any comments on your part would be appreciated. john k 04:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A vote has been called to rename Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia to Aleksandar Karađorđević. The renamers have at least stopped constant unilateral renaming (at last!). Please come, express your opinion and vote. Slán. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of hereditary baronies/Questionable

You created List of hereditary baronies/Questionable... it doesn't provide any context and is named as a subpage... is it still useful? If so, it could use some explanatory text, and go somewhere different (List of hereditary baronies is obscenely large as it is, so I doubt merging's a good idea). -- Jake 05:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Sadleir

I've done a bit of research through the Times Digital Archive. Unfortunately the "Who's Who of British MPs" has very little information on James Sadleir. I would guess, based on the fact that John Sadleir was born in 1814, that he was born c. 1815 given that it would normally be the elder brother who had the more important post. It was John who was the Lord Commissioner of the Treasury and was the principal in the frauds which brought down the Tipperary Bank. There is no information about his date of death, but he does not seem ever to have returned to face justice. David | Talk 00:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page; much appreciated. Chick Bowen 02:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

I think that the problem is that I have a 13-inch screen, not 17-inch. The Info Box overlays the text. The first words that I can see are "an Anglo-Irish soldier."

B00P 00:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:RfAr

I wasn't asking because I wanted to know out of intrest, I was asking because I think it should be clear to ArbCom why you feel the other steps should be skipped.--Tznkai 20:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article James Sadleir, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Imperial Fleet

Thanks for your help fixing the Imperial Fleet article. I've never moved a page before, and that was a hell of a project to start out on. I'll learn the right way to move articles before I do it again (God forbid). Thanks again! Kafziel 05:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]