Cato the Younger

solecism

It is a solecism to append the postnominal, QC, to the name of a retired judge. - Is that so? Perhaps you'd like to enlighten philistines like me as to why that is so? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC) The one commission submerges the other, i.e., once one is commissioned as a judge. The "understanding" used to be that the knighthood and the pension and, believe it or not, the honour of serving as one of H.M. Judges, was the quid in return for which a barrister, having served upon and retired from the bench, would not return to the Bar. Nowadays, retired judges don't appear to "get" it. Regards, Cato the Younger

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 06:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC) – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 06:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tvoz/talk 07:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Tvoz, Perhaps you could explain what is appropriate about excising my corrections without explanation: the behaviour, so far, of three or four of your colleagues. Not one has engaged in an argument with me; as I've attempted to explain in a note to Seaphoto, ALL that I have attempted to do is correct mistakes that appear to indicate a remarkable level of ignorance on the part of your contributors.

If I attempted to correct every inaccuracy that I read on Wikipedia, I would have time to be engaged in nothing else.

Very disappointing.

Cato the Younger

An article's Talk page is the place for discussion of changes, rather than repeated reversion. I do agree with you that edit summaries explaining reversions are important and should always be done. But after several I think it either would be apparent why the reversions were made, or that there was discussion on Talk. The summaries should have taken the time to point you to the discussions about the naming of the article and by extension, its first line. In any case, there is new discussion there now, as you saw, and I hope the policy arguments are clear. We don't all agree about how it's being done, with different results desired, but we work by consensus with Wikipedia policy and precedents in mind. So when you find that you are making what you know to be a "correct" change, and multiple editors revert it, you should go to the Talk page and see if there is discussion going on and jump into it, or initiate a discussion. It also might be helpful if your own edit summaries were a bit more congenial - referring to other editors as making ignorant arguments isn't the best approach here. My posting of the "3RR" template here was meant only to alert you to the potential problem you were likely to incur if you continued reverting. Tvoz/talk 19:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Duchess of Cambridge

Your expert views on royalty is welcome here. As is your dissenting voice on naming duchesses in lead paragraphs. Having people like you vehemently argue for correct naming keeps us honest and informs other editors on what is actually correct (if they did not previously know). But please stop calling other editors ignorant (WP:CIVIL). Editors are going to perceive you as arrogant, and you will be less likely to get your point across.

I understand your concerns about styling royals incorrectly (once again, you're right, "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" is incorrect, and I suspect many editors are unaware of that, and it's good that you're keeping everyone informed), but Wikipedia has to balance what is technically correct and how not to confuse readers. Imagine if the lead paragraph begins with "HRH The Princess of Wales" for all Princesses of Wales articles. Not particularly informative is it?

Regarding your legitimate concern about misinforming readers with the wrong style, don't forget that the articles has a "Titles and styles" section which lists the correct style. Also don't forget this convention was probably developed by editors familiar with royalty and nobility, like you. If you think this is woefully insufficient, then why not come up with a better way to inform readers while keeping with the convention. Place your suggestions on the talk page of this guideline page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility (constructively), and I'm sure the other experts on royalty will be willing to hear you out.

Wikipedia is not politics, where everyone shouts to make sure others know they're right. It is consensus-based and reader-centered. On this issue, you're absolutely right regarding the style, but it's not just about being right. It's also about consensus and how best to help our readers. - Yk (talk | contrib) 17:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for your constructive observations. I'm happy to admit that I'm just a dabbler: I'm interested, only, in correcting errors of fact and that's because I find Wikip(a)edia useful and revolt at the idea of an encyclopaedia (in any form) containing errors. Upon reflection, my language could have been more temperate - though it was more so than that of one other "editor", whose commentary included calling one of her or his interlocutors a moron! My intemperance was borne of frustration at what was, let's be honest, the arrogant practice of others, deleting my corrections without extending me the courtesy of explaining why they thought that they should so do. That is bad manners, plain and simple. It was galling, especially, because I knew that I WAS correct: 40 years in the area has taught this old dog one or two new tricks. I wonder, also, if everyone who "edits" actually READS the history before doing so: a great deal of the discussion - about Kate Cambridge, at least - appears very repetitive. --Cato the Younger (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

40 years, wow. I hope that episode doesn't deter you from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm afraid many (including experts) have taken such incidents personally (especially when dealing with "experienced" users who couldn't care less about educating good faith users unfamiliar with rules and guidelines). Don't give up on this project! - Yk (talk | contrib) 21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'll plug on. Cheers. Cato the Yr --Cato the Younger (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dilhorne Hall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Security Service. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)