Talk:Florence, Lady Phillips

Shame

Shame you can't be civil. It somewhat amazes me that you are ignoring so many people. Many people have now told you how the article should he correctly titled, yet you ignore them. May I remind you do not own the article, so comments like "Article Under Construction" and "I know this must be difficult for you, but would you mind keeping your hands off this article until I have finished it?" (to Proteus) are totally unwarranted. Anyone may edit a Wikipedia article, and just because you created it you cannot tell other not to. --Berks105 17:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should be using long words like "polite" when you don't understand their meaning. As for the correct form for Lady XXXX, look at the Wikipedia counterexamples on your talk page. Have a good day Paul venter 17:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what that was meant to achieve. Regardless many of the people on that list (and they weren't all people) are daughters of peers, so different rules apply. --Berks105 17:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear I don't see you lasting long on Wikipedia unless you start being more polite to people and remember that Wikipedia is a joint effort. And the counterexamples, some weren't people, many were peers' daughters and many were redirects. --Berks105 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware that they weren't all people - I was not going to waste my time sifting through them for your benefit. Next time you quote Wiki policy, kindly add a link I can follow so as to be just as enlightened as you. Also I have great difficulty in being polite to incorrigible idiots Paul venter 17:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I see I'm myself and Proteus are idiots because we disagree with you. Well that makes you language perfectly acceptable of course! I really would advise that if you wish to get on well with people on Wikipedia, you should be polite to everyone. --Berks105 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion before being heavy-handed and changing things to your liking.....as for the "idiot" bit, if the shoe fits....Paul venter 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing, you don't even back down, you just keep insulting. You are clearly not worth talking to, but as a last comment I will say my edits were not heavy-handed, they were fairly minor edits (adding 2 categories, changing the opening line to conform with MofS etc), and certainly not worthy of TalkPage before. --Berks105 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a very broad view of what constitutes an insult. Paul venter 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't "keep my hands off" that article, or any others you've created. Firstly, Template:Underconstruction is intended to prevent edit conflicts whilst a major revamp is underway, not to stifle legitimate edits just because you like a particular article, and I'm going to remove it for that reason. Secondly, the fact that you've created an article doesn't give you the right to decide where it should be and how it should be formatted: such matters are matters of policy and WP usage, and aren't things to be sorted out as the article's being written, and I'm going to revert your edits reverting mine for that reason. I suggest, if you intend on being a constructive editor here, you learn how to interact with people on a reasonable basis, and not act as if you own a particular article, because, I'm sorry to have to tell you, you don't. Proteus (Talk) 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I politely asked you to keep your hands off the article while I was busy with it - see above
2. The Template:Underconstruction was not placed there by me or at my request, but obviously by someone who decided I was being subjected to gratuitous harassment.
3. Styling your edits as legitimate is presumptuous.
4. WP policy, to a very large extent, is a matter of interpretation - if you feel that you are the final word on such interpretation, then we obviously have little common ground.
5. Does being a constructive editor mean doing things your way?
6. Please look at your discussion (or lack thereof) when you edited the article, and then tell me that your behaviour was reasonable
7. I don't own the article and have been here long enough to know the conflict that presumed ownership can cause - but neither do you own the article and therefor your summary edit without any discussion makes a mockery of your supposed reasonableness.
8. If you have any special qualifications that set you above other editors, don't expect them to divine this. Paul venter 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying "not in keeping with the majority of WP articles on similar people". Like who? Augusta, Lady Gregory and Emma, Lady Hamilton spring out as obvious counter-examples, and I can't think of any just at "Lady Surname". Proteus (Talk) 09:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You do realise the index lists redirects as well? I'm certainly not searching through it looking for articles that support you. I'd like some examples, which you've said exist, of the wife of a knight being at "Lady Surname". I'm afraid the daughters of peers being at "Lady Forename Surname" (which is the correct place for them) is utterly irrelevant. Proteus (Talk) 10:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as already said here the correct form might be Lady Philipps, but we use Florence, Lady Phillips for a better clarity (see also Baronet#Addressing_a_Baronet). ~~ Phoe _talk 18:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

Addressing a Baronet Baronet#Addressing_a_Baronet

The correct style on an envelope for a baronet who has no other titles is "Sir <Joseph Bloggs>, Bt" or "Sir <Joseph Bloggs>, Bart". The letter would commence: "Dear Sir <Joseph>".

Wives of baronets are addressed and referred to as "Lady <Bloggs>"; at the head of a letter as "Dear Lady <Bloggs>". Their given name is used only when necessary to distinguish <Alice>, Lady <Bloggs> from <Gertrude>, <Lady Bloggs>.

Hi Phoe...and Proteus, Ok let's see whether I understand this

1. The guideline above suggests that one uses "Lady Phillips" except when it becomes necessary to differentiate between "Lady Florence Phillips" and "Lady Hortense Phillips". The guideline doesn't suggest that this differentiation should take place in an article title or opening paragraph, and certainly one would not dream of physically addressing her as "Good morning Florence, Lady Phillips; I trust you slept well", neither would one inscribe an envelope with "Florence, Lady Phillips" and if a Wikipedia user is to be directed to the correct article through a morass of similar names via a disambiguation (what an ugly term) page, then certainly he doesn't need to end up at a title reading Florence, Lady Phillips. So when does anyone actually need to use this exceedingly clumsy form?
2. Even when constructing lists or indices, the names would appear as Phillips, Lady Hortense or Lady Phillips, Hortense but certainly never as Hortense, Lady Phillips.

Go well Paul venter 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(These sections transferred from my talk page on 29 March 2007)

It's clearly not worth arguing with someone who fails to see sense when so many people explain it to them. You clearly do not understand the British titles and so. Your edits keep making articles worse, so I will revert them as vandalism. --Berks105 08:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping that our correspondence had come to an end. Your use of the term "vandalism" to describe my efforts at countering your destructive edits, underlines your paucity of English. Twice now you have tagged me as someone not worth talking to - please make it so and find someone else to harass. Paul venter 10:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Destructive edits" - All my edits are per MofS, ie removing places of birth & death from opening line, which you keeping adding back. And you asked for User:Phoe's "expertise". Phoe then gave it, and you ignored it. Phoe and Protues are both very knowledgeable about the British peerage and society, and if they both say it should be at Florence, Lady Phillips, you should believe them. --Berks105 10:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi folks

This article appears to be the subject of an edit war. Please discuss the issues on this talk page rather than reverting each others' edits.

If you can't reach agreement, you could try mediation: see Wikipedia:Mediation

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lady Phillips

Please follow MoS. Do not seek to change things by consistent reverting to your POV. If it is correct for her husband to be described as Sir Lionel Phillips in the first line of his article, it is equally right that she is described as Lady Phillips. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is illogical to refer to MoS which does not cover "Lady" and then to accuse me of deviating from MoS. Please have this clarified by someone who knows. Paul venter 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is covered by MoS. What do you think Lady is, if not an honorific prefix? I am someone who knows. Look up Isabella Hervey or the Duchess of Cornwall for comparables. Do not blank this page until the issue is resolved. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lady is the female counterpart to Sir. It is simply the men constitute the most prominent examples of title holders so have been used for examples and it is a perverse reading of the MoS to conclude it intended anything other than Lady would be used. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other_non-royal_names entry specifically mentions Lady_Gregory which is among Wikipedia:Featured_articles. Page blanking is Wikipedia:Vandalism Alci12 13:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lady Gregory is at Augusta, Lady Gregory. This should be at Florence, Lady Phillips. She isn't the only Lady Phillips in history. Corvus cornix 18:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

MoS biographies "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known" At the moment, as far as the Wikipedia search engine is concerned, she is the only "Lady Phillips" and if another were to arrive on the scene, then the customary solution is to use a disambiguation page, and not to mangle the article title into the unspeakably ugly form of "Florence, Lady Phillips". Paul venter 08:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

blanking your own talk page.

Pageblanking talk pages is not a good way to discuss things. On articles it is considered vanadalism. @paul, this is about your reverts!  :Leuk he 13:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul is seeking to hide his stubborn attitude across many different articles. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pots and kettles calling each other black? You're as stubborn as anyone Paul venter 13:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I copied the phrase from [1]. May I draw your attention to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Perhaps I am stubborn in seeking to follow WP:MOS. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Article title

MoS biographies "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known" Paul venter 08:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE DISCUSS FIRST. instead of moving.... You are BOTH violating the 3 rule revert policy and such things (but i bet you knwo policy better than me!) ... :16:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Florence, Lady Phillips. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070727023440/http://www.webdining.co.za/vergelegen/vergelegen_ladyphillips.htm to http://www.webdining.co.za/vergelegen/vergelegen_ladyphillips.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/heritage/lionelphillips/lionel01.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)