Talk:Prescriptive barony

message: Hey gents,
This is a prime example of an article which has been used for commercial use and I would advocate, at the minimum, a serious edit of the information on that page or its removal entirely. I've taken the liberty of removing some sections which were blatantly incorrect or misleading, such as the fact that "it is the ultimate executive privilege to buy a title" or some such nonsense, and several sections which imply that a prescriptive barony (which has a dubious legal standing to begin with) is a peerage. I will edit the rest of this tonight. Rowing88 (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow, this needs serious editing

message: Wikipedia is an upstanding reference, lets please keep debate out of these fine pages.  There are chatrooms for debate.  I've noticed most of the fierce debate is gone from this subject.  Thank you for the excellent progress and effort from our veterans.  I marked a section which is an area of fierce debate-- I may agree with it, but it does not belong here regardless.  These issues are debated so fiercely that there presently ARE lawsuits in the UK over the matter, which remain unresolved to date.  I will post updates on rulings here for veteran editors to assess when they become available.  I have spoken with one of the senior editors of Burke's Peerage and Gentry, a publishing company which publishes opinions from all sides of debateable issues regarding prescriptive baronies: He felt that this was a hotly debated subject, and I agree with him.  We should keep debates elsewhere, thank you to the un-biased peacemakers who continue to improve Wikipedia.  
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Insightfullysaid (talk • contribs) 21:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Humble Request

message: I've blanked the threats and acrimony on this talkpage.  I assume y'all won't miss them.  So, it seems we have ourselves a little revert war.  Yes, it is an edit war.  User:Skull 'n' Femurs is not a vandal.  User:Athelstanus is not a vandal.  Deal with it.  If either of you persist in making personal attacks or other lameness like this, you will be blocked.  
Now, you blokes are both fairly new, so I assume you haven't experienced one before.  Here's some tips:
# Edit wars are lame, even the ones that aren't really lame.
# By participating in an edit war, you're not a vandal.  You're just lame.
# The person on the other side of the war isn't a vandal either, but he is lame.
# If this crap keeps up, either I or another admin will prevent any changes being made to any related article, and block you both for a minimum of 24 hours.
# Your problems won't go away if you just revert often enough to make the other give up, so forget about that right now.
If you're willing to co-operate over this article, and not just blindly revert and fling insults at one another, we might get somewhere.  We have a policy of civility on Wikipedia, best summed up as Don't be a dick.  Things to keep in mind: nobody here is a vandal; nobody here is a fraudster; and you may not threaten to sue someone here unless you plan to do it in a COURT of LAW in TRENTON, NEW JERSEY.
Instead of reverting, or making any controversial changes to this article, please discuss things on the talkpage instead. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How not to be lame

message: : MarkGallagher Thanks for the style and link input here at Prescriptive Barony. Skull 'n' Femurs 04:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Thanks

message: This article deals with the system post 1660, when the title came "by tenure". However, would it not be wise to describe medieval baronies, ie. as an administrative/judicial unit? --Mais oui! (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "by tenure" 

message: A number of edits were made to the England section today by User:86.135.89.33.  These contained a wide range of typographical and grammatical errors.  They made a number of claims based upon a text called Manorial Law</I>, which I happen to have.  This text does state that Honours continue to exist as incorporeal hereditaments like manors, and it also says that Honours or baronies are collections of manors.  However, what it does not say is that an Honour <I>is</I> a barony, or that feudal baronies continue to exist in England, which was the editor's claim.  Should s/he wish to assert this, another source is required. On the basis of the above, I have reverted the amendments to the article until verifiable information is added. Editor8888 (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to England section

message: How about merging with Feudal baron? Seems to be a fair amount of duplication. —Tamfang (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge