User talk:Lord Emsworth

Please note that I might re-format any comments. See also: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7 and Archive 8.

Oh my god! I never use that many punctuation marks, but crimey! I was SOOOO convinced you were a 56-year-old Brit of low-level noble birth who worked at Burke's Peerage. Swear to god. I'm floored. You're a rock star. Wow. jengod 00:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's American, too... :) – ugen64 21:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I'd note that today's FA, Mary II of England, is one of yours and that (as usual) it is excellent. Raul654 20:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I thought you might get a chuckle out of this -- Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations Raul654 01:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting editors applies NPOV and NOR standards rigidly for their input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, where a consensus has yet to be established. I think this AfD is particularly important because it has been bringing to light some fundamental differences in interpretations of content policies among editors. If you have time, please take a look at the page and add your input. Best regards. 172 07:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Lord, do you know if William Lowther, 2nd Earl of Lonsdale was called up to the House of Lords in 1841 by a writ of acceleration? Everything I've checked suggests that he never sat in the Commons again after 1841, yet he's certainly in Peel's government as Postmaster-General. His father didn't die until 1844. I mean, a writ would explain everything, I just don't have any evidence. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He was summoned to Parliament on 8 September 1841 in his father's Barony of Lowther, of Whitehaven in the County of Cumberland (Peerage of Great Britain, created 26 October 1797). (So says the Complete Peerage, at any rate.) Hope that helps. Proteus (Talk) 22:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's it exactly, many thanks. Mackensen (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a further question. Would he be known then as the Lord Lowther by virtue of the barony, for that three-year period, and not as Viscount Lowther? Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. The courtesy Viscountcy would take precedence over the substantive Barony (cf. Lord Salisbury, who was known as "Viscount Cranborne" even whilst sitting in the Lords in his father's Barony of Cecil). Proteus (Talk) 08:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be amused by this Raul654 20:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You redirected "First Lord of the Admiralty" to "Admiralty" with the edit summary "this list exists elsewhere".

• First - I question whether this is a good reason for redirection. The office itself merits an article, whether the incumbents are listed somewhere else or not. It was an important office.
• Second - where is this other place where the incumbents are listed? Why isn't this the place where the list should be maintained? How are later readers, like myself, going to go check to see whether the list remains in existence a year later? -- Geo Swan 03:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • See List of Lord High Admirals and First Lords of the Admiralty, which it mentioned on Admiralty. FWIW, in this case, I think it make sense to have one page which discusses all of the offices. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice little mention the other day (17 January). Just thought I'd drop by and pass along a little gratitude to a fellow Lord for promoting Wikipedia. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your hard work on the Hugo Black article, and rather than engage in an edit war with you I want to make a couple of points. First, the ordering of Black's beliefs as relating to specific provisions of the Bill of Rights as the actually appear in the Bill of Rights is completely arbitrary. Black's civil rights record needs to be treated separately in the article. Frankly, the old structure, which treated the issues in a sort of chronological order (civil rights first, then incorporation, then free speech during the McCarthy era, his rejection of "right of privacy" in the 1960s, etc.) was superior because Black's emphasis, if not his actual views, changed over time and also because the new structure is utterly arbitrary. I disagree strongly with some sections where you attempt to describe Black's record as inconsistent, incidentally; I don't think that it is true that his lack of support for extending the Fourth Amendment or "right of privacy" renders his jurisprudence less absolute than he claimed. And I don't agree with many of your deletions of content; for example, Chambers v. Florida was the first indication that this ex-Klansman was not actually racially prejudiced on the bench. I am not going to keep playing revert games with you, however; I expect you to respond to my comment in some manner. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

Hi Lord Emsworth,

I'm a reporter for Gannett's Washington Bureau and I'm writing about Wikipedia. An Admin told me you are the top contributor "by far and away." Would you have time for a quick interview? Please send your contact information to ngaudiano@gns.gannett.com.

Thanks,

Nicole Gaudiano Gannett News Service

Fantastic work that you do here!! Can you help me here please? Would Arthur Russell, second son of Lord George William Russell have been called Lord Arthur Russell? Why? Thanks in anticipation. Cutler 12:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm soliciting Wikipedia:Peer review#United States Bill of Rights comments from people who contributed to the FA on the 1st Amendment, since there doesn't seem to be any response at PR. Many thanks, Kaisershatner 21:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was good to see your name on some recent contributions, even if have been concentrating until recently on US legal subjects rather than (the much more important) British topics ;) Your contributions are all the more valuable these days, given how few and far between they seem to be. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salve Lord Emsworth, you have once helped edit the article above. There is a discussion on the correct name of the article though, since you helped out maybe you care to drop by and take a look? With kind regards Gryffindor 17:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 17, 2006 - (Intentionally aimed for St. Patrick's day) Raul654 00:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was mining "Random article" for something fun to work on today and I stumbled upon Baron Hesketh, an article you started. I noticed that there are a lot of links to un-created articles. In my opinion, it seemed too many, so I removed most of them. I also notice that solitary years were linked, so I removed those as well, in accordance to the MoS at WP:DATE (the linking of years should either be for a strong connection to that year in question, or as part of a full date, where the wikilink is mainly about allowing the user's preferred style of date display to be used.) Just thought I'd leave you a note in case you disagree with me and would like to discuss these edits I've made. Best, Johntex\^talk 23:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Since you seem to have been involved in editing Hugo Black, I thought I'd tell you that I have posted some—I hope helpful!—comments about the article on the talk page. They respond to some of the objections that were made during the failed featured-article nomination. You can see my comments here. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Please read the bottom two sections of that page. Thanks. Nightscream 18:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how much it helps - but I photographed Lord Brougham's daughters wedding - there's some pictures of Michael here that I give permission to use on Wikipedia. Sculpher 24 March 2006

I notice you seem to have some knowledge of British peerage, and I'm wondering if you can take a look at Talk:Lord Wolfson of Marylebone and make any comments you might feel appropriate. It's not a subject I know much about, and I wouldn't want to get the titles wrong. Fan1967 15:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your recommendation, I have moved the article to Leonard Wolfson, Baron Wolfson (talk). I also merged the two articles on him. Fan1967 00:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! --Mermes 01:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a student at the University of Utah working on a thesis project about Wikipedia. I am researching the construction of knowledge within the wikipedia institution and hope to find some contributing members who would be willing to allow me to interview them (either on IM or video chat). I read about you in a Wired article that was published last year. Would you be willing to grant me an interview that I would be able to use for my thesis? Also, could you think of any other members that would be good people to interview? 155.97.209.58 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)U of U Student[reply]

You may like to comment here: [1] Giano | talk 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on Lord Chancellor you changed the plural to Lord Chancellors from Lords Chancellor. Can I ask why you did this, when it is a clear compound plural, indeed if you look at An official Report by a Royal Commission and the following parts of Hansard [2] and [3] you will see the term Lords Chancellor used. As you will well know Hansard is not a verbatim account of debates and always makes corrections to MPs or Lords speeches when errors are made, therefore it is clear that the correct pluralisation is Lords Chancellor. --Wisden17 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your quick reply. I've contacted my MP, House of Lords Information Office and Hansard to see what their views are. I'll let you know the result of my inquires, as my MO at least should get back to me, as he is legally obliged to. --Wisden17 15:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know my MP got back to me, very quickly (withing 24 hours) and he's written to the Lord Chancellor. So I'll let you know the outcome when I get some news. --Wisden17 19:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, Lord High Chancellor → Lord High Chancellors, I think, no? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly the same issue, I personally would say Lords HIgh Chancellor, and indeed this I would argue is the correct form of the compound plural (I don't know if you know much about compound plurals, but worth researching, e.g. court martial → courts martial). I'll be interested to see what the Lord Chancellor's Office have to say. --Wisden17 22:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think that there is any dispute about "courts martial," "attorneys general," "sons-in-law," and so forth. In each of these cases, the first part is a noun, and the second an adjective. However, this is not the case with "Lord Chancellor." -- Emsworth 22:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I would contend that Lord Chancellor is a noun adjective construction. Lord is a noun, the Lord Chancellor has to be a Member of the House of Lords, thus has to be a Lord (which is a noun) and he is a 'special' Lord, in the sense that he is a Lord with the position of Chancellor, thus Chancellor acts as an adjective. Thus Lord Chancellor, with the adjective Chancellor, separates him from simply a Lord.

I note Encylopedia Britanica use 'Lords Chancellor' and Answers.com --Wisden17 23:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord Chancellor need not be a Lord; several commoners have been appointed to this position. The Lord Chancellor is not a special Lord, but a special Chancellor (as opposed to, for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of Oxford University). He is often referred to as "the Chancellor"; he is never called "the Lord." -- Emsworth 23:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]