| Revision as of 18:37, 8 October 2013 editPdfpdf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,076 edits →Template:US officer ranks: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:50, 8 October 2013 edit undoDrKay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators159,607 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Duchess of Cambridge | |||
| Do you think the ancestry section in this article (DOC) should acknowledge the recent research done by Anthony Adolph: | |||
| http://anthonyadolph.co.uk/princess-catherine/ | |||
| His research proves that the Duchess is indeed a direct descendant of Edward III. This research was originally done by William Addams Reitweisner and Michael J. Wood (WARGs) in 2011. Adolph now confirms, in July 2013, Reitweisner's original research. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Prince Harry of Wales == | |||
| Do you think that the article about ] should contain information about his 6-year-long relationship with ]? Please see . ] (]) 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Moving a page == | |||
| Dear DK! Please move ] to its former title, '''List of Irish consorts'''. Its title should be similar to the titles of the other lists like ], ], ] and ... . <span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 14:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you so much. <span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 20:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hello again! I had a discussion with ]. Please take a look at articles, ] and ]. It probably should be Valide sultan and Ottoman dynasty. We compared the latter with ] and ]. We think that the "s" in Valide Sultan and "d" in Ottoman Dynasty should not be capitalized. They are not proper nouns. Can you move titles of those articles to the correct form?<span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 15:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I asked you to perform the moves because It appears that we cannot do it.<span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 15:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've moved Valide sultan, but unfortunately, I think Ottoman Dynasty will have to go to ] because there was a previous attempt to move it that was later undone. ] (]) 16:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I also had another question. Should we move ] to ''List of valide sultans''? What do you think about it? Also, thank you so much for you help. And about Ottoman Dynasty, I think I'll give a request for moving it. <span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 18:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also as an administrator, only you can move . So please do it as soon as you can.<span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 16:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::At last, please help me by moving ] to '''Muhammad Ali dynasty'''. Thank you very much.<span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 17:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi DrK! I wanted to tell you something. As you can see, I asked you to perform some moves. Those articles were about dynasties. I told you to move ] to ] like ], for example. I really thought there were few articles with this mistake in their titles but when I checked ] and ], I understood that I was wrong. In history of Iran I found ], ], ] and ]. About China, I found all of titles of the articles about their dynasties incorrect. As you know, "'''D'''" shouldn't be capitalized. Unfortunately I can't perform the moves, so should I talk with the other administrators or you can perform the moves yourself? <span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 19:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::How can I give a request for moving ] to ]? Can you tell me exactly? <span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 15:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::That seems to have been done by someone else. If it's moved back you need to follow the process at ]. ] (]) 15:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}} | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your excellent efforts with ]. Best of luck with the FAC! ] (]) 22:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == question == | |||
| DrKiernan, how were you able to get the bot to ask random editors to comment on the RfC on QEII's title? Thanks. ] (]) 01:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I only notified the and . Perhaps you're talking about the ]? The WikiProjects on the Elizabeth II talk page are automatically alerted to any RfC template on the same talk page, e.g. ]. ] (]) 06:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't have much experience with RFC's. I saw the bot's notice on another editor's talk page, that's what brought me to the RfC on Elizabeth II. I've only commented on the QEII talk page a few times in the past. Thanks for the info. ] (]) 15:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, yes. At North8000's I presume? I think they get notified through the sign-up service at ]. ] (]) 16:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, and it was fortunate the bot chose him as I rarely check my watchlist anymore. But I will keep an eye out for QEII. Thanks. ] (]) 17:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Help with vandal? == | |||
| Please could you swing by ] – having looked at his ]. I could do with some help – he has ], I have reverted, but he has begun an edit war rather than getting into discussions. :( ''''']]]''''' 23:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Queen Victoria== | |||
| Then please explain to me why my item, about Victoria's conditional proclamation as Queen, is not appropriate for inclusion in an article about her? Thank you. ] (]) 14:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :You've been told already by at least two other editors in addition to my own edit summary. ] (]) 14:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == I'm sure you're right == | |||
| so I'd like for you to explain the Wikirationale behind . I know there's a specific reason why you uncapitalized their titles, it just looks "funny" to me, so I need to know your *why*. (I tried that sentence with different titles, say changing Dukes of Kent to dukes of kent, and it still looks funny...) Thanks, ] (]) 16:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm following the guidance at ]: if used as part of a title, e.g. Grand Duchess Anastasia, it is capitalized, but when used as a common noun, such as when speaking of more than one grand duchess, it is not. ] (]) 16:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I knew there had to be a reason for it, but it still looks funny to me... I suppose I've never thought of Grand Duchesses or the Dauphin etc as being common... Thanks, ] (]) | |||
| ==Hello== | |||
| Can you say me what is the meaning of the "ff." in the reference 87 in ]? Thanks.--] (]) 20:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It means "and subsequent pages" ] (]) 20:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you very much.--] (]) 21:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==My whoops== | |||
| Sorry. That whole thing with the opening and the closing at ] was so confusing! With regards, ] (]) 21:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, as long as I'm here and since you're an admin: There's been no additional comment at ] for six days; it began almost a month ago, on June 25. The scope of it changed as discussion progressed, from the original request to simply being to add a five-word phrase as another editor did . (I agree with that editor that there was consensus at that time, and only reverted him as a procedural thing, since the RfC hadn't been formally closed.) I'm afraid it's one of those long and winding discussions, but if maybe you have a chance you could take a look at it with an eye toward closing? With thanks, ] (]) 22:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Mathilde of Belgium == | |||
| Hi DrK. Please take a look at the talk page of ]. There's a discussion there about the title of the article. Let us know your opinion. What do you think about the title of the article?<span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 14:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh == | |||
| Is there some reason why you consider yourself above the requirement to actually ''discuss'' disputed content on talk pages when asked to? ] (]) 13:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I've nothing further to say beyond the edit summaries. ] (]) 14:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::In which case, since the category is clearly factually incorrect, I see no reason whatsoever why I shouldn't remove it. ] (]) 14:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::You seem to be arguing that the statement "his father was Greek" does not logically mean that "he was of Greek descent". If the first statement is true, then I don't see how you can argue the second is false. | |||
| :::In terms of his descent from the Byzantine Greeks, yes, that was many centuries ago, and I believe that was already removed from the article some time ago. ] (]) 14:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The correct place for this discussion is the article talk page. But for the record, 'nationality' does not imply 'descent' ] (]) 15:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == RE: Picture == | |||
| Look,I didn't know it was copyrighted and I didn't know it was illegal for me to upload images, so please don't yell at me Sir!. | |||
| 06:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I'm not yelling. The shortcut link is formatted in capitals: see the shortcut box to the right of the lead at ]. I shall use the full title in future with new users to prevent this sort of misunderstanding. ] (]) 07:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Consorts naming issue == | |||
| I've opened a move discussion at ]. Just like at ], the only users participating are those who have been editing Misplaced Pages articles about royalty for years. They are accustomed to illogical practices such as referring to a queen consort as ] and to a queen regnant as ], and equally illogical practice of having ] and ]. Thus, they fail to see that uninvolved users, for whom articles are written, cannot grasp the difference between the twojust by looking at the article titles; in fact, they can only be confused and misled into thinking that Sonja/Mathilde is a monarch and Juliana/Philippe a consort. Therefore, I would like to get opinions of "outsiders", of users who do not edit articles about royals. I was advised ] to try a ] but I have no idea how to do it given that I've already started a move discussion. Could you give me a hand? Thanks. ] (]) 19:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the trouble now is that there are two different discussions: one saying add the "Queen" and the other saying drop it. It'll get more confused if we start a third before waiting for those two to close. I'd start an RfC only if the requested move(s) did not resolve the issue. (That's what I did at Elizabeth II: RM first, followed by RfC when the RM closed without consensus.) ] (]) 20:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree, having three discussions about it would not be good. Can you think of any other way to get "outsiders" to comment? If I understood ] correctly, the idea was that the RfC just links to the move discussion so RfC itself would not be a third discussion. ] (]) 09:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I must tell that you didn't add four consorts to that list. ], ], ], ]. The titles of these article should be ], ] and ]. About Lalla Salma, I don't no what title can be chosen for it, ] or ]. But, as she's the wife of a king, the second one is better, like ], who is the husband of a queen. What do you think, ], DrK and the other ones? <span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 15:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I deliberately only proposed replacing the "Queen Y of Someland" format with the "Y of Someland" format. We should probably deal with other formats later. ] (]) 15:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was about to suggest adding an rfc tag in exactly the same way as you've just done! ] (]) 16:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That really is incredible, since I considered a dozen possibilities before deciding that that was the best one! I'm not sure if the "brief, neutral statement of the issue" is worded clearly, though. If you can improve it, please don't hesitate to do so. ] (]) 16:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Four questions == | |||
| Hi DrK! I wanted to ask some questions: | |||
| * First: Was ] married to another woman before Princess Anne or he was unmarried until 1992? | |||
| **I believe it is his first marriage. | |||
| * Second: I think you know many things about the British Royal Family. So, In which hospital, place or building ] was born? I'm asking it because the other British princesses by marriage like Diana, Camilla, Sophie and Catherine have the name of hospital or place that they were born in it, in their birth place in infoboxes. | |||
| **She was born at 27 Welbeck Street, London on 15 October 1959 according to {{cite book|authorlink=Alison Weir|last=Weir|first=Alison|year=1996|title=Britain's Royal Families: A Complete Genealogy|edition=Revised|publisher=Pimlico|location=London|isbn=978-0-7126-7448-5|page=333}} | |||
| * Third: Why the title of the article of ] isn't ]? Should we have ] instead of ]? | |||
| **Marina's page name was decided at ]. Alice's has been stable for a while I believe. I suspect there would be resistance to moving it since she is probably more commonly known as "Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester". I think I'm right in saying there is no established standard for wives of royals other than sovereigns, and things tend to be decided ''ad hoc''. | |||
| * Fourth: Why the title of the article of ] isn't ]? I mean she is a dead consort, so the title of her article should be the name she had before marriage, like ] or ]. <span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 15:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **That was decided at ], which I weakly opposed on the basis of consistency with other consorts. ] (]) 16:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you write the birth place of Sarah in her infobox? Because I think you are better than me in citing sources. <span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 17:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Problem == | |||
| Hi DrK. I have a new problem in moving a page about a Turkish-German actress. The title of the article was ] at first. Someone moved it into ] and then I tried to moved it back to the first title, but I couldn't. So I moved it to ] and I kept trying but at last I gave up. It seems that only an administrator can move pages like this. Can you move it to its first title, ], please? <span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 21:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. ] (]) 15:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you very much. I also had a question. Where is the current residence of Sarah, Duchess of York? Is her residence the same with Prince Andrew, the ]? <span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 11:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's what the newspapers say, yes. ] (]) 17:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Styling and Birth Dates == | |||
| Hi, I have reviewing on the Royal Family articles, and Surtsicna (user) seems to be getting out of her way and consistently editing on styles and birth dates as to it should not be, since names are potentially announced on days of weeks after a birth of a royal, in which point it shouldn't be as this is retroactive. Styling is from date of birth onwards as is with the name, though announced on a later date as UK law states in can be done up to 42 days. It is just a pointless discussion, hope you can assist on trying to make this stop, thanks :) ] (]) 21:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :We say that the Prince's name was announced on 24 July. In the very next sentence, we claim that he was known as "HRH Prince George of Cambridge" from 22 July. I cannot be (and am not) the only one who sees something wrong there. If it is somehow true that the baby was known as Prince George before his name was announced, you will have no problem finding a source that confirms it. A couple of obvious solutions would be | |||
| :*a) leaving only the year | |||
| :*b) plainly stating what his style is and not mentioning any date or year since his style hasn't changed throughout his 6-day-long life. ] (]) 21:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::*c) leaving only the month and year? although the simplicity of (b) seems, to me, overwhelming. ] (]) 18:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have said a lot about this on the Talk page. Here, would only mention that the date of the announcement at the end of the first section "Announcement and birth" and the earlier birth date at the beginning of the next, "Title and style", is not factually inconsistent, but for some it may jar stylistically. On that score, I feel the section titles are sufficient separation. If the intruded bullet line were removed, the second section would read "Under letters patent...George is, from birth, a British prince..." which refers to the same birth date, 22 July, and I believe all are agreed that both name and title are as from birth, whatever may be the later dates or sequence of the registration or public announcement of the name. Some other editors have been making quite a trip out of this non-issue, for reasons which could be surmised. ] (]) 19:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Line if eldest son predeceased the monarch? == | |||
| Who would be next in line if Charles, PoW, predeceased the Queen? His son William if living, or his brother Andrew, if living? A letter in today's Times (Alastair Muir of Bearsden, Glasgow) says the latter "with his eldest daughter becoming the heir apparent". Could the point be clarified in ], or if taboo there, somewhere else, if not there already? ] (]) 16:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It's definitely William. Muir is simply wrong. The situation happened for real on the death of the Black Prince before Edward III (Richard II, the Black Prince's son, inherited) and the death of Frederick, Prince of Wales, before George II (George III, Frederick's son, inherited). On both occasions the Prince of Wales had younger brothers but it was the son that inherited not the siblings. ] (]) 17:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks - those had come to mind, but I felt a need for reassurance, given the curious quirks sometimes connected with succession, like Victoria's accession proclamation. Tomorrow's paper may bring a corrective, maybe from Lord Lexden, as now is. ] (]) 17:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. == | |||
| ] | |||
| This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "]". | |||
| Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] <sup>''] / ]''</sup> 04:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Legitimacy of Queen Victoria == | |||
| Hi Dr. K, | |||
| This is a fascinating article explaining the background to Victoria's succession, but the conclusion is not objective. I see that you have reverted the changes I made to correct this. I had thought that the two points at issue would be self-explanatory, so I would be interested to hear your objections. | |||
| 1. The argument dismissing the genetic evidence is not valid. There are two observations (haemophilia and porphyria), and the article satisfactorily explains how neither offers conclusive proof that Victoria was illegitimate. However, together they show a significant probability that she was and cannot be simply dismissed. I did put in a reference about probabilities, but maybe I need to explain further how probability of multiple events works? | |||
| 2. It is a minor, perhaps pedantic point that the reference to A N Wilson's book is placed as though it were a reference to the critical reviews. There are no references to the reviews - perhaps there ought to be? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Your insertions appear to be original research, and run counter to the expert opinions of McKusick and Jones, who are geneticists of unimpeachable reputation. ] (]) 10:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm afraid you miss the point - I have no issue with evidence of the unimpeachable experts. The problem is the article's conclusion from that evidence that the two observations are not significant, given that, according to the article itself, the probability of just one of them is 70% (100% - 30% of spontaneous mutations). Also, you have not addressed the issue of the placement of the reference to A.N.Wilson's book. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 19:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::The article does not say that the probability is 70%, nor should it, as that would be totally wrong. For example, since it is now known that the royal hemophilia was hemophilia B (this has been shown by DNA tests on the Romanov corpses), the likelihood of a spontaneous mutation (in the absence of any other explanation) is in the region of 1 in 100,000. The absurdity of the claim lies in the impossibility of an affected male impregnating the Duchess of Kent, and the absence of any hemophilia in the family of Conroy. It is ridiculous to argue that since the Duke of Kent was not a hemophiliac, then Conroy must be, when we know that Conroy was not. The probability of inheriting the mutation from an affected father is void since the father did not have the disease. The most likely explanation is that the mutation arose in the sperm of the father or the ovum of the mother, since no other descendants of the Duke or Duchess or Conroy or any of their collateral relations or anyone at all remotely connected to the Duchess in any way whatsoever had the disease. In deciding whether the mutation arose in the sperm or the ovum, it is most likely the sperm since spontaneous mutations arise more frequently in the sperm of older males than they do in the ovum of younger females. ] (]) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you for responding to the substance of this issue, although there are now three red herrings confusing things. 1) The 70% figure does indeed come from the article, i.e. 'spontaneous mutations account for about 30% of cases'; 30% for spontaneous cases leaves 70% for inherited cases. 2) The figure of 1 in 100,000 would be the answer to a different question, that is, what would be the probability of any random individual acquiring the haemophilia B gene by spontaneous mutation. But we know that Victoria did carry the gene, so the relevant question is, what is the chance of spontaneous mutation as opposed to inheritance. 3) Your statement that 'The probability of inheriting the mutation from an affected father is void' denies the figure of only 30% of cases being spontaneous, unless you are proposing that Haemophilia B can only be inherited from a mother. | |||
| ::::Your response suggests that you think that I am arguing that Victoria's father was likely to have been Conroy. Not so. I certainly agree that Conroy is almost as unlikely to be her father as the Duke of Kent (almost, given the porphyria observation). I think you will find that this is clear in the contribution that you reverted, which you have yet to justify. | |||
| ::::I note that you have still not addressed the issue of the placement of the reference to A.N.Wilson's book. | |||
| ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 15:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::1) In the ''modern Western world'', 70% of hemophilia B cases arise in families with a history of the disease and 30% of cases arise in families with no history. Note all cases are male. | |||
| :::::2) All daughters of hemophiliacs are carriers. Sons of hemophiliacs do not inherit. For carriers, there is a 50/50 chance that daughters will also be carriers and a 50/50 chance that sons will inherit the disease. Note all hemophiliacs are male and all carriers are female. | |||
| :::::3) This is void because Victoria's father was not a hemophiliac (and as a male clearly not a carrier). Hence, either her mother was a carrier (unlikely since no other relations of her mother were carriers or affected by the disease) or it was a spontaneous mutation. ] (]) 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Your point 3 is the nub of the problem. You are arguing from the assumption that Victoria's father was not a haemophiliac; this is the petitio principii fallacy - begging the question. The point is that we cannot be certain who her father was, and the genetic evidence tells us that there is a greater than 70% chance that he was a haemophiliac, and therefore not the Duke of Kent (or Conroy, for that matter). | |||
| :::::::The 70% is a modern figure that applies to the 21st-century Western world. In 1800 or before, when her father must have been born, the figure was much, much lower. It is surmised that most hemophiliacs died in infancy, and those that didn't were weak and sickly, so it didn't run in families. The life expectancy of hemophiliacs was 11 years or under, even into the later half of the 20th century. You have to remember that blood-letting and leeches were standard medical practices at the time and there was little understanding of disease. A standard treatment to prevent bleeding was to let more blood, as it was understood generally that reducing blood pressure by further bleeding led to eventual stoppage. That did not apply to hemophiliacs: they just bled to death. | |||
| ::::::::This is what's missing from the article! So the argument is that at the time it was close to impossible to inherit from any haemophiliac father (whether the Duke of Kent, Conroy or anyone else), because very few haemophiliac boys made it to maturity - very plausible, though an external reference would strengthen the case. I note that the modern 30% figure mentioned in the article is not relevant, except perhaps to point out that spontaneous mutation is a plausible explanation. | |||
| :::::::There are no records, and let me emphasize that point: none whatever, of any hemophiliacs anywhere near the Kents at any time. No relations, no servants, no friends, no acquaintances of any manner whatsoever had hemophilia. Trying to argue that some mysterious unknown hemophiliac who magically survived late-eighteenth/early-nineteenth century life and medical practice and then slept with the Duchess of Kent apparently unbeknownst to her servants, companions, husband, political opponents, and, it seems, herself, is ludicrous in the extreme. | |||
| ::::::::Are you really suggesting that the Duchess of Kent could not have had a liaison without you having heard about it? You can't possibly know, and using invective like 'ludicrous in the extreme' makes me wonder how objective you are about this. Fortunately, this is not material to the case. | |||
| ::::::I note that you have still not addressed the issue of the placement of the reference to A.N.Wilson's book.] 20:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It is a trivial point but the reference is to "critical reviews" as well as the discredited work itself. ] (]) 19:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm glad you see this as trivial, but then I wonder why you objected to my putting it right. It is simply not the case that the article references the critical reviews - it references only the book. Still, once the article is revised it would be fair to say that the book's observations on the subject can be discounted; it doesn't need putative, unreferenced reviews. | |||
| ::::::::It seems that, to support its conclusions, the article should explain the near impossibility of male inheritance in the late C18th. I assume that you would wish to do this, and will watch with interest. ] 20:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Leslie's Monthly 1886 engraving of Edward VII as Prince of Wales == | |||
| You have referred to ''"Frank Leslie's Popular Monthly"'' magazine from which the 1886 engraving of Edward VII as Prince of Wales (see below) came as ''"a penny-rag that was used as tomorrow's toilet paper"'' in your in which you deleted (for a second time) that image from the Edward VII article. I gather from this edit summary, however, that you are apparently not familiar with the history, reputation or content of this well known American journal which was published from 1876 to 1904 under that name and then continued to be published from 1904 until 1956 as ''"The American Magazine"''. | |||
| ''"Frank Leslie's Popular Monthly"'' was the monthly companion publication to ''"]"'', a broadsheet weekly that was published from 1852 to 1922. Along with ''"]"'' (1857-1916) and ''"]"'' (1850-present), during the second half of the 19th century and through the early years of the 20th century these four publications were successful and famous in this country (the United States) for not only the quality of their articles but most especially for the of the tens of thousands of wood engravings that illustrated ''Leslie's'' and ''Harper's'' over the decades. While ''Leslie's Monthly'' also used the phrase "The cheapest magazine published in the World" on its cover to boost sales, this ''only'' referred to price (which at 30¢ in 1886 was not the "cheapest"), ''not'' to the quality of its content, its printing, or its stock which was heavy non-acid rag paper. | |||
| The 19th century issues of all four of these publications are still highly prized and sought after by collectors (such as myself) for the variety and quality of their engravings and illustrations for which they are so deservedly famous. Literally thousands of these engraved images have been digitized by WP contributors and used in articles here. While you have now twice removed this particular image (see below) of Edward VII as Prince of Wales in 1886 (some 14 years before he assumed the throne), you have also yet to provide any valid reason why this is either inappropriate or unencyclopedic. | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| This engraving of Edward VII is one of nine individuals who are similarly illustrated in a six-page article entitled ''"The Upper Ten Thousand in England"'' by Lilly Higgin -- and one of over one hundred engravings overall -- in the January, 1886, issue of ''Leslie's Monthly'' magazine. As I am sure neither you nor any other currently living person ever met the then Prince of Wales in 1886 (and no other images of him during that time period exist in this article of elsewhere on WP) I do not see on what basis (other than presumably your personal taste) you have to affirmatively support a claim that this engraving of him is "not a good likeness". The claim that ''"Frank Leslie's Popular Monthly"'' is ''"a penny-rag that was used as tomorrow's toilet paper"'' -- even if that were ''true'' -- is also not a valid reason that this or any other image from ''Leslie's Monthly'' or any similar publication would not be acceptable on WP. | |||
| As you have chosen to remain completely anonymous on WP by providing no information about yourself on your userpage, I have no way to judge or surmise on what other basis you may have some special expertise or should be given deference over myself or any other editor in evaluating this image as to its accuracy at representing the subject's "likeness". (A glance at your contributions indicates that a fairly large percentage of your "contributions" seem to consist of deleting the contributions of others in articles about European royalty, but that does not help me as to on what basis you do so as edit summaries are missing and/or vague in many of those.) Also the fact that a particular image is not known to you or any other individual does not mean that it may not be "well known" to others, or, for that matter, whether or not how "well known" any particular image is relevant in the slightest as to its validity. | |||
| As I understand WP Policy, if an editor wishes to dispute an otherwise valid, sourced, and encyclopedically appropriate contribution made by another editor the proper approach is not to unilaterally delete it but instead to open a discussion about the contribution (in this case an image) in the article's talk page, give his or her reasons why that editor thinks the contribution is "wanting" or violates WP policy and/or guidelines, and seek consensus of the community as to whether it should be deleted for cause. In my opinion, however, neither a unilateral personal, subjective view that an image is "not a good likeness" or expressing an opinion that the source of the image may be ''"a penny-rag that was used as tomorrow's toilet paper"'' (which it is not) constitute valid reasons to delete an otherwise relevant, well sourced, public domain image that illustrates something discussed this or any other article. ] (]) 20:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It is of no merit or interest and adds nothing to the article. ] (]) 20:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry, sir or madame, but that "reply" is completely ''un''responsive to any of the issues I have raised above and fails the test of providing any good and valid reason(s) to unilaterally delete this or any other good faith contribution of another editor to any article. With respect I am also constrained to observe this comment seems to be a bit of an arrogant and dismissive approach (especially for one who indicates he/she is a WP Admin) to display in response to the legitimate and good faith issues I have raised here, and by its curtness seems to indicate that you may instead manifesting ] with regard to this article. As these are matters of WP policy I have raised, as an Administrator in whom the community has entrusted you with its faith to help serve the interests of both the project and its volunteer contributors, I again ask you to respond to the matters I have raised. ] (]) 20:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::See, for example, ]: "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. If the article is about a general subject for which a large number of good quality images are available, editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted. Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful. For example, three formal portraits of a general wearing his military uniform may be excessive; substituting two of the portraits with a map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath may provide more information to readers. You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." | |||
| :::The article already contains at least nine images of the same podgy bearded man, in at least six of which he is a wearing a uniform and/or medals. This image adds nothing further; is of a low artistic quality; is not integrated with or relevant to the text; and is of no special historic, artistic or popular interest. | |||
| :::Do not lecture me on tone when you belittle my contributions, competence and knowledge. ] (]) 20:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since you have chosen (as is your "right" under WP policy) the operate on WP behind a complete veil of anonymity, there is no way for me to judge what the level of your "contributions, competence and knowledge" may be and your edit summaries are no help with that either. (If you are interested in my background or what I do you are free to visit my ] in which I am completely open about who I am and what I fell competent to contribute to WP.) That being the case the only thing I had to go on was your comments to me in here and the two edit summaries you used when you deleted my contribution. For instance you made a claim that this image was unacceptable because it was "not well known" (to you at least) and that ''"Leslie's Popular Monthly Magazine"'' was a ''"a penny-rag that was used as tomorrow's toilet paper"''. I took the time to point out neither of these were true and that also neither of these were relevant in and of themselves as valid reasons to delete an image. | |||
| ::::As I did not see (and still don't) ''any'' images that showed what Edward VII looked like between 1863 and 1896 -- a period of a third of a century -- I thought (and still do) that one of him in 1886 was completely appropriate and so I posted the engraving from ''Leslie's'' in good faith which you promptly deleted giving as the only reason that in your personal opinion is wasn't a "good likeness". When I restored it you then claimed it was instead wanting because: 1) you were not familiar with it (it's "not well known"), and; 2) that didn't like its source which you mistakenly assumed was a "penny rag" instead of one to the top publications that are valued even today for their many fine 19th century engravings. (At no time, by the way, did you bring up "image relevance" as a reason.) In good faith I asked you for something more specific as I did not see that any of these three reasons met any test of WP policy to unilaterally delete this image, but what I got instead was a lecturing, curt, dismissive, and unresponsive reply that did not not address ''any'' of the points or issues I raised. (As I have pointed out elsewhere on WP, I find the this anonymity of contributors policy to be one of the great weaknesses of the Project as it encourages and emboldens people to behave in ways such as this toward other volunteer contributors that they would never do face to face or if their identities were known to all.) | |||
| ::::We are all volunteers in here, sir or madame, and we all want to do what is best for the project. As an admin you should know that better than any of us "just editors" in the community who, after all, are the ones whom you asked to entrust you with the special sysop tools to ''help'' the rest of us, not "lecture" us. I agree that the photograph you posted above is better than the engraving which I posted in good faith and will therefore not return mine to the article. I ask you, however, to in the future be a little more responsive and respectful to us "just plain editors" in here who just want to contribute what we can to the project without being summarily dissed (especially anonymously) by those who we in the community have entrusted with the tools to administer it. ] (]) 21:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Duke of Beja == | |||
| How was ] ever ]?--] (]) 19:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Unlike some editors, I copy what is in the sources rather than make it up as I go along. ] (]) 21:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is this a widely used and credited fact or an obscure mistake found in one source and later copied and reused without knowledge of its mistake. I notice they are all English sources with titles not very indicative of being written by a historian probably not focusing too hard on getting every title and detail correct. It does matter if Portuguese sources don't call him a duke of Beja. This is fairly new until you added it seeming like it pop out of the blue from a few mistaken sources.--] (]) 22:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| It is pretty obviously an error. The title of "Duke of Beja" was only created in 1453 - more than ten years after he died! ] (]) 22:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Aaron Kosminski == | |||
| Hi. I have made some edits to the Aaron Kosminski page, which you deleted (or undid). I wrote a book on Aaron Kosminski, and am the world's leading expert on him as a suspect. Many of the sources cited on the page (Trevor Marriott for instance) are decidedly NOT experts on Aaron Kosminski. Other, such as Paul Begg's book, are good sources, but outdated. Moreover, the source of the part I deleted was an article I WROTE, in which I speculated that Isaac Kozminski of Goulston Street MIGHT HAVE BEEN related to Aaron Kozminski. I have since proved that this person was not related to Aaron Kozminski, so the whole part about Goulston Street should be deleted. And I deleted it (again). If you want to replace that image with a map showing the relative location of the murder sites to Aaron Kozminski's actual (probable) address, I could supply one.--- Robert House. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Yes, I'm aware who you claim to be. I was the one who introduced the House source. On wikipedia, we don't distinguish between equally qualified sources and Robert House is no more or less of an expert than Trevor Marriott. Nor do we publish original research. If there are published sources disputing the suggestion that the Goulston Street Kosminski was related, then they can be balanced against the sources that suggest it might be otherwise (there are more than just the House article), but we do not select one or other viewpoint that accords with our own: we present both with due weight. ] (]) 16:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| So, I have in my possession all of Aaron Kozminski's family's genealogical records, I have written a book on the subject which post-dates my earlier speculation that Isaac Kozminski might have been related to Aaron Kozminski. It was later proved that this was not true... Isaac of Goulston Street is not related to Aaron. Was this published in my book? No, because there was little need to publish a negative in my book, in reference to an earlier speculation published in a journal with a circulation of about 100. Likewise, I published in my book that Aaron Kozminski did have two brothers and a sister living in London at the time of the murders. You can find other sources that will contradict this, but they are wrong. So what is to be done? You are basically maintaining control over a page and a subject that you know nothing about, and denying me the right to update it to facts that I know to be correct. Is this the way Misplaced Pages is supposed to work? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Moreover... what do you mean by "equally qualified sources"? Trevor Marriot's opinions on Aaron Kozminski are all based on secondary sources... he has done no original research on Kozminksi. AND, it has recently been demonstrated in an article posted in Ripperologist magazine that he plagiarized much of the work in one of his books. So I don't see how you can claim that he is an "equally qualified" source on this subject. Not that he posted this particular point anyway. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I mean that there are no professional qualifications required to be a ripperologist. One just sets oneself up as an expert. ] (]) 08:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Elizabeth II, Queen of Ireland == | |||
| Hello. I just read a rather old comment of yours on ], and I wanted, if only out of curiosity, to ask a question about it. You say that Elizabeth II was proclaimed Queen of Ireland in 1952. I am not sure, however, whether that is in fact the case. Certainly she was proclaimed Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but was her father, George VI, not the last person to claim the Irish throne? I should have thought that as a consequence of the Ireland Act 1949 Elizabeth II would have had no claim to the title of Queen of Ireland. I would be interested to know, however, whether I am incorrect in thinking this.--] (]) 01:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :She was not Queen of Ireland, just as Anne was not Queen of France. They are just empty titles adopted by tradition or habit and do not signify any actual claim. ] (]) 07:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Template:Heads of State of Malta == | |||
| Mr Hall has now reverted us four times. ] (]) 15:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Succession Act of 2013 == | |||
| Oh. Ok. Sorry, I didn't know, in France they said the law still applied, but they probably made a mistake. Sorry again! Have a good day. ] (]) 10:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2013 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on . | |||
| :List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | |||
| *<nowiki>* Crichton, Torcuil (26 June 2005) "The Last of the St Kildans:"</nowiki>{{red|''']'''}}<nowiki> Glasgow. ''Sunday Herald''. A report of a surviving St Kildan re-visiting the islands.</nowiki> | |||
| Thanks, <!-- (0, -1, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 10:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Lady Eleanor Talbot== | |||
| I noticed that in your last edit summary you mentioned a putative child by Edward IV, but this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Do you know of any reliable source? ] (]) 07:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I got that from ]'s ''Britain's Royal Families'' (p. 141), where she says he died in infancy in 1468 (same year as Eleanor). ] (]) 07:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, I'll add it to the article then. Thanks.] (]) 07:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Arms of Diana == | |||
| Hi DrK! Do you know when the coat of arms of Diana was adopted? For example, Camilla's arms was adopted on 17 July 2005. I really tried to find a source for the exactly date but I couldn't. I'm sure that you have a source for it. Also the section "Arms" in Diana's article doesn't include any source. Should we add some reliable sources or maybe it's not necessary?<span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 08:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :She inherited them from an ancestor, so I'm not sure there is a formal adoption date. If you can add sources, then by all means do so, but I wouldn't consider it a high priority. ] (]) 16:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Million Award== | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid red; background-color: #FFF7F7; width: 70%;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Million Award''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your contributions to bring ] (estimated annual readership: 3,579,000) to ] status, I hereby present you the ]. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Misplaced Pages's readers. -- ] (]) 14:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Misplaced Pages's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at ]. You're also welcome to display this userbox: | |||
| {{User MAwardFA|Queen Victoria }} | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- ] (]) 14:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like I owe you at least one more of these--thanks again for all you do! Not many editors have made it into the Hall of Fame table twice. | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid red; background-color: #FFF7F7; width: 70%;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Million Award''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your contributions to bring ] (estimated annual readership: 1,452,000) to ] status, I hereby present you the ]. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Misplaced Pages's readers. -- ] (]) 13:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| {{User MAwardFA|Mary, Queen of Scots }} | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| :Cheers, -- ] (]) 13:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Missing source == | |||
| I saw to ]. There is of course , but that is not it. ] (]) 09:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Care to help out? == | |||
| I see you've done some editing on Greek history topics around ]. I wonder if you'd be interested in helping with that overview article? There are still come {{tl|fact}} and {{tl|cn}} tags in place that need to be addressed. It would be appropriate to see that article cleaned up substantially prior to the centennial of Sarajevo, that will take a substantial collaborative effort over the next year. At one time it was FA-class, but now it isn't even GA. The latest review notes provide lots of things still to be worked on, then a fresh peer review is in order. Pretty please, could you help out? ] <small>]</small> 15:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) == | |||
| The ] has been running since July. The last comment was added on 19 July, and the one before it was added on 9 July. The template has already expired. How will the RfC be closed? Should I ask someone to do it? ] (]) 17:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :NickCT has listed it at ]. ] (]) 17:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, thanks! ] (]) 18:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Different titles == | |||
| Hi! I really want to know why the title of the article about the engagement dress of the Duchess of Cambridge is ] but the title for the article about her wedding dress is ]? I think "Wedding dress of Kate Middleton" should be moved to "Wedding dress of Catherine Middleton". What do you think? Am I right or not?<span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 20:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I prefer Catherine personally. As Teresa Ngan already moved it and Jenks24 moved it back, any further moves should go through ]. ] (]) 20:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for September 6== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Prestigiuozman == | |||
| Continuing to edit war, eg Irish people. On train with bad connection so can't raise 3RR. ] (]) 15:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 315: | Line 19: | ||
| :Cheers, ] (]) 10:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | :Cheers, ] (]) 10:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::I seem to recall reading that it was along the lines of a 75th birthday present, but unfortunately I can't find where I might have seen that, sorry. ] (]) 19:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | ::I seem to recall reading that it was along the lines of a 75th birthday present, but unfortunately I can't find where I might have seen that, sorry. ] (]) 19:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == September 2013 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on . | |||
| :List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | |||
| *<nowiki>|</nowiki>{{red|'''}'''}}<nowiki></nowiki> | |||
| Thanks, <!-- (0, 0, -1, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 20:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Template:Cite newspaper The Times== | |||
| I've reverted your edit, rationale on ]. ] (]) 08:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I've commented further, there may be a way around this. ] (]) 11:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sea-going== | |||
| I accept of my AWB edit. Please also leave a note about this at ], would you, please? --] (]) 16:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==SPATRA reactivation== | |||
| Hello DrKiernan, I notice that you were involved in the project ] a few years ago. However I also notice that here has been very little activity since 2007. This is a project I'm particularly interested in and would love to see it revived. I've taken the bold step of identifying an article requiring translation and I'm in the process of inviting collaboration. The article ] could really use your help. In addition, I'd welcome any ideas you may have to help revive this project so that there is greater collaboration among ES>EN translators on en.Misplaced Pages. I'm identifying various contributors from whom the SPATRA project may benefit. If you have any recommendations then feel free to contact them directly or submit there usernames to me via my talkpage. I look forward to your participation. Gratefully - ] (]) 02:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Charles I... == | |||
| ...just to say nice work on the ] article - it's looking a lot better already! ] (]) 20:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you. I hope to take it to GAN by the end of next month. ] (]) 08:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Moving some pages == | |||
| Hi DrK! Again I have problem with moving the titles of some pages. I want to ask you because as an administrator you can move them but I can't. Can you move ] to ''Nakşidil Sultan'', ] to ''Gülüstü Kadın Efendi'', ] to ''Hatice Muazzez Sultan'' and ] to ''Adile Sultan'', and also some historical figures ] to ''Dongmyeong of Goguryeo'' and ] to ''Bidam''? Please do it every time that you can.<span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>]</sup></span> 15:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Belated thanks == | |||
| DrKiernan two or three months ago you taught me not use ref name if the ref is used only once. Every time I remember this rule and I would like to thank you. ] (]) 17:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == <ref name=/> new user talk: ForGats == | |||
| Hello, My Name Is ForGats & property for The General Agreement on Trade in Services. | |||
| == <ref name=/> new user talk: ForGats == | |||
| == <ref name=/> new user talk: ForGats == | |||
| Hello, My Name Is ForGats & The I'm aa... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == 6* rank == | == 6* rank == | ||
| Line 366: | Line 31: | ||
| :I've already done so. ] (]) 15:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | :I've already done so. ] (]) 15:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::You have? Where? ] (]) 18:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | ::You have? Where? ] (]) 18:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ===tag=== | ===tag=== | ||
| To me, is a reasonable solution. In my opinion, it is a vast improvement over your previous approaches, and in my opinion it quite concisely captures the essence of the problems I have with the lack of reliable and/or verifiable sources. Had you bothered to discuss the matter rather than embark on an edit war, you would have discovered that, as reflected in the talk page archives, many of those involved in the discussions, including me, had, and still have, problems with "six-star-rank". For example, how do you prove, or disprove, something that has never existed? (As distinct from General of the Armies and Admiral of the Navy, both of which have existed.)<br> | To me, is a reasonable solution. In my opinion, it is a vast improvement over your previous approaches, and in my opinion it quite concisely captures the essence of the problems I have with the lack of reliable and/or verifiable sources. Had you bothered to discuss the matter rather than embark on an edit war, you would have discovered that, as reflected in the talk page archives, many of those involved in the discussions, including me, had, and still have, problems with "six-star-rank". For example, how do you prove, or disprove, something that has never existed? (As distinct from General of the Armies and Admiral of the Navy, both of which have existed.)<br> | ||
| Personally, I have an ambivalence/conflict. On the one hand, the rank has never existed. On the other hand, US military history discussions are littered with references to it. Therefore, it has some sort of "virtual" status, and it would appear to me that WP doesn't know what to do with things that have a "virtual" status.<br> | Personally, I have an ambivalence/conflict. On the one hand, the rank has never existed. On the other hand, US military history discussions are littered with references to it. Therefore, it has some sort of "virtual" status, and it would appear to me that WP doesn't know what to do with things that have a "virtual" status.<br> | ||
| Hopefully our future interactions, should they occur, will be "smoother", and I look forward to smoother future interactions. Cheers, ] (]) 18:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | Hopefully our future interactions, should they occur, will be "smoother", and I look forward to smoother future interactions. Cheers, ] (]) 18:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :The previous version of the article was better. Sourced articles are better than unsourced original research. Unsourced material may be removed at any time. | |||
| :There is nothing wrong whatever with my attitude. I have performed only two reverts 21 hours apart each time removing unsourced original research and replacing it with sourced content. You have performed 3 reverts within 24 hours, each removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced original research, and you are aware of 3rr. | |||
| : 1st revert (reverts ) | |||
| : 2nd revert | |||
| : 3rd revert with an unwarranted and insupportable accusation of vandalism. ] (]) 18:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == General of the Armies == | == General of the Armies == | ||
| I have no general problem with , but I do think it would be useful to have a date associated with the 6-star insignia in order to chronologically slot it into the narrative and make it clear that it post-dates Pershing's 1919 4 gold stars, and the 1944 5 silver stars. Do you have a problem with associating 1945 with the insignia. If so, is there a date that you do not have a problem with? Looking forward to your response. Cheers, ] (]) 18:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | I have no general problem with , but I do think it would be useful to have a date associated with the 6-star insignia in order to chronologically slot it into the narrative and make it clear that it post-dates Pershing's 1919 4 gold stars, and the 1944 5 silver stars. Do you have a problem with associating 1945 with the insignia. If so, is there a date that you do not have a problem with? Looking forward to your response. Cheers, ] (]) 18:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :OberRanks says there are two: 1945 ("completely unofficial") and 1964 ("projected"). ] (]) 18:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Template:US officer ranks == | == Template:US officer ranks == | ||
Revision as of 18:50, 8 October 2013
Six-star rank
That's a whole lot better. Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. I'm confused about which secondary source says 1955, (and why it would say it). Was it:
- Foster, Frank C. (2011) United States Army Medal, Badges and Insignias, Medals of America Press, ISBN 9781884452673, page 19;
- Weintraub, Stanley (2007) 15 Stars: Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall: Three Generals Who Saved the American Century, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 9781416545934, page 488; or
- Korda, Michael (2009) Ike, HarperCollins, ISBN 9780061744969, page 190?
- As the proposal was raised for the invasion of Japan in 1945, why would this secondary source say 1955?
- Can you enlighten me please? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Foster talks about Pershing being made General of the Armies and then says "In 1955, a similar effort was made to reward General Douglas MacArthur, this time with specifying a six-star rank, but it never came to fruition." He then talks about Washington and the Bicentennial.
- Weintraub talks about events in December 1954 on the preceding page before moving on to say, "A few MacArthur devotees in Congress, like Representative Martin, tried to organize support for honorary six-star rank for the general, but as that would have been a slap at Eisenhower, such legislation had no chance." In the paragraphs that follow, Weintraub mentions Eisenhower's heart attack in September 1955.
- Korda says "Congress would twice try to promote him from the new rank of General of the Army—a five-star general—to the unique rank of General of the Armies: a proposed six-star general."
- I think the two dates (1945 and 1955) might be the two times that Congressmen tabled resolutions to promote him. DrKiernan (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Most appreciated.
- The "Why 1945" is easily explained. Have you got any idea what was particular about 1954/1955 that caused the 1955 "revival"?
- Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- I seem to recall reading that it was along the lines of a 75th birthday present, but unfortunately I can't find where I might have seen that, sorry. DrKiernan (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
6* rank
Suggest you read General of the Armies. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- That article has citation needed plastered all over it. Unsourced wikipedia articles do not qualify as reliable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- As I've asked you elsewhere: So what? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- My god! Your user page says you're an admin!! Therefore, you should know that your replacement of unsourced material with irrelevant information is unacceptable behaviour. I will remind you for a THIRD time, the article is about 6-star ranks. The article is NOT about "General of the Armies". You can quote an infinite number of sources for statements about "General of the Armies" till the cows come home, and no matter how many you quote, they are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to an article about 6-star ranks. You should know this. In fact, I'd be astounded if you didn't know this. What's your agenda here? Clearly, you are NOT behaving in the manner that an admin should. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you are unhappy about my behavior then there are forums for you to raise your concerns at WP:AN and WP:ANI. DrKiernan (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for confirming the information. I've been an editor for over six-and-a-half-years, but it's nice of you to reconfirm this information. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you are unhappy about my behavior then there are forums for you to raise your concerns at WP:AN and WP:ANI. DrKiernan (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- My god! Your user page says you're an admin!! Therefore, you should know that your replacement of unsourced material with irrelevant information is unacceptable behaviour. I will remind you for a THIRD time, the article is about 6-star ranks. The article is NOT about "General of the Armies". You can quote an infinite number of sources for statements about "General of the Armies" till the cows come home, and no matter how many you quote, they are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to an article about 6-star ranks. You should know this. In fact, I'd be astounded if you didn't know this. What's your agenda here? Clearly, you are NOT behaving in the manner that an admin should. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- As I've asked you elsewhere: So what? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I've lost count of the number of times I've asked you "So what?" Are you ever going to answer the question? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've already done so. DrKiernan (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- You have? Where? Pdfpdf (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
tag
To me, this is a reasonable solution. In my opinion, it is a vast improvement over your previous approaches, and in my opinion it quite concisely captures the essence of the problems I have with the lack of reliable and/or verifiable sources. Had you bothered to discuss the matter rather than embark on an edit war, you would have discovered that, as reflected in the talk page archives, many of those involved in the discussions, including me, had, and still have, problems with "six-star-rank". For example, how do you prove, or disprove, something that has never existed? (As distinct from General of the Armies and Admiral of the Navy, both of which have existed.)
Personally, I have an ambivalence/conflict. On the one hand, the rank has never existed. On the other hand, US military history discussions are littered with references to it. Therefore, it has some sort of "virtual" status, and it would appear to me that WP doesn't know what to do with things that have a "virtual" status.
Hopefully our future interactions, should they occur, will be "smoother", and I look forward to smoother future interactions. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- The previous version of the article was better. Sourced articles are better than unsourced original research. Unsourced material may be removed at any time.
- There is nothing wrong whatever with my attitude. I have performed only two reverts 21 hours apart each time removing unsourced original research and replacing it with sourced content. You have performed 3 reverts within 24 hours, each removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced original research, and you are aware of 3rr.
- 16:05, 7 October 2013 1st revert (reverts )
- 10:49, 8 October 2013 2nd revert
- 13:44, 8 October 2013 3rd revert with an unwarranted and insupportable accusation of vandalism. DrKiernan (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
General of the Armies
I have no general problem with your recent edit, but I do think it would be useful to have a date associated with the 6-star insignia in order to chronologically slot it into the narrative and make it clear that it post-dates Pershing's 1919 4 gold stars, and the 1944 5 silver stars. Do you have a problem with associating 1945 with the insignia. If so, is there a date that you do not have a problem with? Looking forward to your response. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- OberRanks says there are two: 1945 ("completely unofficial") and 1964 ("projected"). DrKiernan (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Template:US officer ranks
Please note that although Dewey's AN insignia was "official" (I think), Pershing's 4 gold stars was "unofficial". Pdfpdf (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)