User talk:Le baron

Joe I 05:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I will be reverting all these edits when I get time. Please find something useful to do. Adam 03:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and

• This page was modified to
  Pathoschild's template list. // Rory096 04:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm sure you know that it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to put "The Right Honourable" etc in front of people's names in biographical articles. If you don't know, I am telling you now. Please stop wasting the time of other editors. If you do this again I will report you for vandalism. Adam 12:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you did not heed this. Please stop doing it. -- Necrothesp 19:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also fixed up the dreadful mess you made of Gordon Samuels. Please don't edit on subjects you know nothing about. Adam 01:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove stub notices, they serve a purpose. They're not there to mock your article saying it's too short, they're there to attract editors who want to expand the article, if they're looking for an article to expand, it's more likely that they will be found if they have a stub notice.

If you'd like to add stub notices,

As per my previous warning, I am now reporting you for vandalism. Adam 07:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably know that Nelson Mandela has a section 8 entitled Orders and decorations. This is where his Canadian gongs should go: not in the intro to his article!Phase4 12:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

May I ask why you changed the order of the KCMG and the KBE? As the senior order, KCMG always comes first. -- Necrothesp 19:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The titles Most Honourable, Right Honourable, Most Noble etc in front of peers names look odd and are not generally used even by the peers themselves. They are in fact only used in the most formal terms of address, so it seems a bit odd to insist on using them here. Some editors (not me, since I'm a monarchist) also object to such terms since they feel it implies that the holders are superior to other people. To avoid frequent edit wars, it was decided to eliminate all such titles (including Majesty, Royal Highness, Holiness, Eminence, Excellency etc) from the title lines, although they can be included in info boxes or in the body of the text. -- Necrothesp 19:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding honorifics everywhere. There is a specific policy to deal with them here. Continued, repeated edits against the MoS consensus may constitute vandalism. JoshuaZ 12:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings above are a clue. Also, given you were warned, why didn't you ask then? --Calton | Talk 23:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually asked several times including emails sent through. I apologise if I have offended anyone but I find comments that have been received from cretins such as FearÉIREANN are not appreciated.

Two things:

• Calling the admin who blocked you -- with whom it appears, BTW, you made no attempt to respond to BEFORE the block -- a "cretin" isn't going to get you far.
• Putting a template inside a header? Don't do that. --Calton | Talk 02:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly,

Calling the admin that blocked me a cretin was in response to the comment "you and your sockpuppets" so it is hitting below the belt but as far as I am concerned recipricol! Not responding to him was not a protest, I just did not respond.

Secondly,

If you point our where I have put a template inside a header and I will ammend it. But to be blocked without being told what I have supposedly vandelised is wrong. i dont want to argue or get told off, all I want to do is make sure the information that is on Wiki is correct.

He was wrong to accuse you of sock puppetry, but that doesn't mean that reciprocating was or is a good idea. Ignoring warnings and final warnings before blocking is also a bad idea. Who have you responded to? I saw one comment at

Help:Talk page

.

Now, to deal with the main issue. The reason you have all these angry messages and have gotten blocked is that a lot of your edits have violated the guidelines at

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes

. Because some people feel that the use of prenominal styles like "His Excellency" and "The Honourable" does not represent a neutral point of view, they are not to be placed in the first line of the article. Academic degrees (Ph.D., LL.D., MA, etc.) and service affiliations (RN, RAF, etc.) should not appear in the list of post-nominals; they're trivial and clutter things. Military ranks are something of a gray area: there seems to be a rough consensus that:

1. Only officers ranking at or above major or the equivalent in other services should ever have their rank on the first line.
2. Of such officers, the rank should only be included if they continued to use it in later life. (Obviously there's room for disagreement on this — use your best judgement.)
3. When included, the rank should not be linked.

User:Necrothesp seems to be the unofficial authority on the use of military ranks if there's a problem.

Anyway, I and other people tried to point you to these guidelines, but you never responded on our talk pages and just kept editing. When someone has "reverted" your edit (changed it back to what it was before you edited it), the proper response is *not* to make your change again and say nothing. You *should* leave a message on that person's talk page asking why they changed it. If you don't communicate with people, and keep making changes that aren't agreed with, you will get nasty messages, warnings and blockings.

Now, having delivered my lecture, I'm grateful for the good work you have done adding post-nominal letters. (You should be aware that when you add missing post-nominal letters, you should also go to the bottom of the article and add the proper category: someone with the CB goes in [[Category:Companions of the Bath]], and so forth.) Your work needs to follow the proper style guidelines, and if you're willing to do so, I and others will very much appreciate your help. If anything I've said is confusing, please respond here or (when you're unblocked) on User talk:Choess. Yours, Choess 05:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No unblock, you were warned. Please also read

WP:NPA. --pgk^(talk) 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le baronWhat do you mean "Nonsense"? I would like an explanation as to what "nonsense" you are talking about?Le baron

Why don't you read articles before you make your usual dumb edits? Do you ever do anything here besides waste people's time? Adam 05:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I am reporting you for your continual nasty needless comments. Instead of being the moralistic highground standing fairy that you are how about you say "sorry what you have put is incorrect". Do not think that your comments go unnoticed. I have taken this to several people within wiki and they are not happy with your attitude.Le baron 06:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You persist in making edits which you know are contrary to style and which you know will be reverted. This is no more than deliberate wasting of other people's time. If you do it again I will ask to have you blocked. Adam 00:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have again reverted your stupid and provocative edits to the Governor-General articles. As per my promise of 19 September above, I am reporting you for vandalism and asking that you be (again) blocked. Adam 07:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making edits which contravene the manual of style. You have been persistently warned, and continue to do so. If you will not cease making these edits, you will be continually blocked until you do so. Rebecca 07:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]