Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:59, 19 June 2015

Order of St John / Most Venerable Order of Saint John

Hi DrKiernan: thanks yours earlier & being new to this procedure, have I submitted the move request from Venerable Order of Saint John to Most Venerable Order of Saint John correctly? Many thanks again. M Mabelina (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have started the discussion for you on the talk page: Talk:Venerable Order of Saint John#Requested move 8 March 2015. DrKiernan (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciate your help DrKiernan. M Mabelina (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DrKiernan (DrKiernan): trust all is well with you & since you have been so helpful ref Most Ven vs. Ven. etc, a hot topic of ever more mesmerizing proportions!, could I just seek your advice quickly? I have no wish to "report" people (unlike the treatment I was dished out very recently), but there seems to be a gang of three or so who have plenty to say on Talk:Venerable Order of Saint John#Requested move 8 March 2015 but unless I am losing my faculties they have little value to add. Of course everybody is entitled to an opinion, but I didn't think Misplaced Pages was supposed to be like the hustings and have been told so by one of the three! The latest message from Boven starts: "I think that you may be a bit confused on the specifics of the Order's history" which I hope is more than evident as being the direct opposite - so is this type of fabrication acceptable & good practice among Wikipedians? This process is certainly an eye-opener to me & it hasn't even finished yet! Anyway look forward to hearing what your thoughts on this are. Many thanks indeed. Best M Mabelina (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Anglicanus has been uncivil, but unfortunately there is little that can be done about it. Editors are advised to try to remain civil and respond politely even in the face of provocation. I don't think the arguments either for or against the move are very strong. There may be more mileage in moving it to the long form, or a shorter form (using Miesianiacal's primary usage argument). Alternately, a parenthetical disambiguator could be suggested such as "Order of St John (St John International)" or "Order of St John (English-speaking nations)". DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Good thinking - or "Order of Saint John (British Commonwealth)"?? M Mabelina (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

PS. I know whichever way you look there are complications, hence my thought to style it as it says on the tin (or charter in this case) - what Wiki should I hope try to avoid is sponsoring bad habits etc... and it is certainly the case whilst you & me and various others know exactly what is meant by the Venerable Order, those that don't will come to presume that this is how it is properly styled..... Anyway - appreciate your thoughts - till soon. M Mabelina (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

& just a final musing: how about "Order of Saint John (British Crown)"? That's pretty watertight I think... M Mabelina (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The main problem with British Commonwealth or Crown is that the Order of St John has a priory in the United States. It also operates in the Republic of Ireland, Jerusalem and Hong Kong (although these are not priories). DrKiernan (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DrKiernan - it was a pleasure liaising with you but I can't seem to shake Anglicanus off my back so let me say farewell and good luck with your endeavours. M Mabelina (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User: ByronCollins

Hello DrKiernan, Could I please bring to your urgent attention the activities of ByronCollins. This user has inserted some 20 unreferenced/advertising contributions to various MoD sites today. They have been previously warned about these activities and I have left a further note - all of which have been ignored. Can I leave this with you for action please? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Raymond Wong Pak-ming

Will you close the RM, or did you forget? --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Joseph McCarthy edits

You're right about whether the Find A Grave link is needed. I hadn't noticed the grave photos on the Misplaced Pages page the first time I reviewed it after you removed the Find A Grave link. Billmckern (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Find a Grave external links

Hello Dr. K.: If you don't mind, I think you are going overboard with the removal of Find a Grave from the External Links sections. In 2011, there was discussion about the Perennial websites essay here. I tried to clarify some of the misperceptions about FAG. To recap: Several million of the grave listings came from the Department of Veterans Affairs and Commonwealth Graves Commission. Find a Grave itself maintains editorial control over the "famous" people. I have no beef with removing the templates that lack grave photos. But at least 3 of the articles you purged, like Otis Reading, had grave photos. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

While I'm sending thanks for the images, I think the Find a Grave ELs serve the articles better. In Thatcher's case we are getting an article cluttered with images rather than links. – S. Rich (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The Negro Motorist Green Book

I thought I'd notify you that I've renominated The Negro Motorist Green Book as a featured article candidate; you commented on the previous nomination last year. If you have any views on it this time round, please feel free to comment at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Negro Motorist Green Book/archive2. Prioryman (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Gibbes

Hi Dr Kiernan, I wish to advise that as a niece of Rodney Gibbes, I can assure you that Rodney (Bobby's cousin) was not an only son, he has a brother born in 1934 who is still living named Richard Gibbes. Ldarca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldarca (talk • contribs) 10:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This newspaper article has been used to support the article text. Misplaced Pages operates a policy of "verifiability", which means wikipedia does not allow us to publish a statement unless it has been published first elsewhere by a reliable source. If a published source say Rodney Gibbes was an only son, then the article text based on that source is usually only modified if another publication saying the opposite is provided.

You may wish to raise this issue at Talk:Bobby Gibbes or with User:Ian Rose, who wrote the article. DrKiernan (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Commencement

Is it the case that the commencement today of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 provisions will affect the Line of succession to the British throne only in respect of those annotated MC, namely George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews now no (34), displacing those after by one position, and Prince Michael of Kent displacing those after by one more position, down to Zenouska Mowatt as new (54)? Qexigator (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In terms of inclusion, yes, but people born after 2011 are listed in order of birth without reference to gender, which effects the order of two cases where boys were born after elder sisters. 17:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Clegg's statement says the changes "come into effect across every Realm" today. DrKiernan (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Succession to the British throne

Is it not the case that under common law alone, that is if all statutes were repealed, descent has been and remains by male-preference cognatic primogeniture, hence the modifications by the Act of Settlement etc.? Qexigator (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I think then the best thing to do is drop all mention of common law and statute from the lead and just explain the rules. DrKiernan (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. May I leave it to you to do the edit? Qexigator (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Problem with disruptive edits by User:1.43.24.108

I noticed that User:1.43.24.108 has recently been making disruptive edits to a large number of Misplaced Pages pages. Thank you for reverting many of those. I have posted a message on that user's talk page (User talk:1.43.24.108), where there are various other warnings to the user, but no replies from the user. Since this is an IP address, I'm not sure if the user's talk page will be read by the user. Is there any other way to contact this User:1.43.24.108 to prevent the user from causing further damage to Misplaced Pages? I will check here for your reply. Thanks for your help! -- Blairall (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Update regarding User:1.43.24.108 -- at Charles Spencer, 6th Earl Spencer, User:1.43.24.108 had changed "Charles Robert Spencer, 6th Earl Spencer" to "Charles Robert Spencer, The Rt. Honourable 6th Earl Spencer" on 1 April 2015, which you reverted (thanks!). On 2 April 2015, User:1.42.15.25 made an identical edit at John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer, where the user changed 'Edward John "Johnnie" Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer' to 'Edward John "Johnnie" Spencer, The Rt. Honourable 8th Earl Spencer'. The talk page at User talk:1.42.15.25 shows that this editor has been engaging in a lot of disruptive edits and was recently blocked (on 19 February 2015) for a while. Based on the editing history, it looks like User:1.42.15.25 switched over to account User:1.43.24.108 during the period from 26 March to 1 April 2015, which might be a violation of the WP:ILLEGIT policy (inappropriate uses of alternative accounts). The user is now only making edits with the account at User:1.42.15.25. I have posted a message on that user's talk page (User talk:1.42.15.25), but there is no reply from the user despite signs of current editing today. Is there anything that can be done regarding this user, to prevent further damage? I will check back here for your reply, when you get a chance. Thank you for your help! -- Blairall (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP. Can you please let me know if things start up from another one? Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help with that! -- Blairall (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

taiwanese aborigines templates

• brokenness brought to you by User:Wugapodes. • Serviceable†Villain 14:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• responded at Talk:Taiwanese_aborigines#Citations Wugapodes (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I hadn't realised there was only one transclusion until after I'd posted. DrKiernan (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank you so much for your help with that User:1.42.15.25. Have a nice holiday weekend! -- Blairall (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother's Death

I very much respect that you are monitoring the entry about Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. However with all due respect, I felt my entry was all about Queen Elizabeth. It was brief because I didn't didn't want to overburden the section. If you have read the article, it is a very poignant and straight forward account of Queen Elizabeth's final hours that wasn't revealed until almost a decade after her death. Even the Queen read and approved its publishing. What would be a more acceptable means of referencing a first hand account of Queen Elizabeth final hours where she should the same resilience she did in life? Ksk2875 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A little help

Hi. Someone has created Haseki Sultan Complex which is about mosque, school and hospital that was created by Hürrem Sultan (Roxelana). The Turkish version of this article is tr:Haseki Külliyesi, but I can't add its language link to the English article. When I click add links at the language section, I get an error. Can you do it instead of me, please? Keivan.f 18:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. This happens when the target article is already included on another page. I've merged the two pages. DrKiernan (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But what was the other page? Which page do you mean? Keivan.f 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There were two pages at wikidata: Q6041720 and Q19363506. The English and Urdu articles were linked on the latter but the Turkish article was linked on the former. I have merged the two pages together. DrKiernan (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to move List of consorts of the Ottoman Sultans to List of consorts of the Ottoman sultans, but it seems that I can't and an administrator should do it. Can you move this page, please? Keivan.f 13:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why but I think maybe I have an internet connection problem. Because again I can't add the language links of this article. Here's the Turkish version. There are more articles about this historical figure in other wikis but I can't add any of them. Keivan.f 08:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Could be the progam/operating system you're using. I had no problem using an up-to-date Windows version of Chrome on the 11th, but I'm using a different computer today (earlier Windows version with Internet Explorer) and I couldn't edit the wikidata page. However, I can do so in Firefox. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And also I found new problems in two articles: Ayşe Hatun I and Ayşe Hatun II. Their talk pages redirect to some other articles' talk pages. Besides, I think someone should move them to Ayşe Hatun (wife of Bayezid II) and Ayşe Hatun (wife of Selim I). They weren't monarchs, so using I and II is wrong. Other examples are Ayşe Hatun (wife of Osman II) and Ayşe Hatun (wife of Murad IV). I don't know why but Misplaced Pages doesn't let me move them. Also I didn't find any move request for these two pages. Keivan.f 10:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem there is that there appears to be another wife of Bayezid II, Gülbahar Hatun, who is also known as Ayşe Hatun. And Ayşe Hatun II is being disambiguated from another wife of Selim I called Ayesha Begum. These moves should probably go to WP:RM as they are not straightforward. DrKiernan (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually Ayesha Begum was a sister-in-law of Selim I, wife of his brother and daughter-in-law of Bayezid II so her page has no relation to Ayşe Hatun II's page. Many wives of Ottoman sultans were also known as Ayşe Hatun besides their common names. See Ayşe Hatun. So I think these two pages are straightforward enough for moving. Keivan.f 13:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm wrong: Gülbahar Hatun and Ayşe Hatun I are the same person, or at least both pages share certain details, such as death dates and parentage, although it's possible that two women have become confused with each other. An IP has created the Ayşe Hatun I page, so I'm reverting that. If you wish to move Gülbahar Hatun to Ayşe Hatun (wife of Bayezid II), then I suggest a requested move, since the page has been moved about a lot. The problem here is that all these women are easily confused with one another and the details of one woman have become confused with the other. All these pages are a mess, and I don't think more unilateral moves are going to help. DrKiernan (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I also realized that Hafsa Sultan redirects to Şehzade Sultan and also Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) redirects to Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III). Actually I found no article for Hafsa Sultan and Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) on Turkish Misplaced Pages. They were so young when they died thus they're not notable. I don't know why these pages redirect to those two. It has no meaning. They should become deleted. Also I don't know who moved Şehzade Abdullah (son of Suleiman I) to Şehzade Abdullah. Actually there were at least two Şehzade Abdullah in Ottoman history. One of them was the son of Suleiman I and the other one was son of Selim II. I think that page should become moved to its previous title and then Şehzade Abdullah can turn to a disambiguation page. Keivan.f 11:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please take these requests to WP:RFD and WP:RM. They are not quite straightforward enough for me to do unilaterally. Sorry, DrKiernan (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And finally I think Rumeysa Sultan should become moved to Rümeysa Sultan. u should change to ü, like Lütfi Pasha. Keivan.f 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've done that, though you should be able to move cases like that yourself as there is no page in the way. Best wishes, DrKiernan (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I won't move Gülbahar Hatun. This was the first and correct title for the article. I visited Gülbahar Hatun Mosque in Istanbul and I know that Selim I's mother is her. Sometimes her name is credited as Ayşe Gülbahar Hatun. I'll give a move request for Ayşe Hatun II. Unfortunately now I realized that User:Retrieverlove has moved Tacünnisa Hatun to Hatice Halime Hatun 5 months ago except creating a new article. I don't know why but I can't find the history of Tacünnisa Hatun's page, but I feel that they are different persons. These two pages should become separated. Is it possible for you to do that? I also gave that user a warning. He hasn't done mistakes like this for five months. I think separating the articles is enough, of course if they aren't the same person with the same material like Gülbahar Hatun and Ayşe Hatun I! Keivan.f 14:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

British royalty

I believe you can improve these articles. Do you know any user who has knowledge and can help me expand historical figures' articles? I was thinking about improving Margaret Tudor's, Catherine Howard's, Elizabeth of York's and Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby's articles, but I can't do it alone. Keivan.f 12:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have seen that members of the royal families receive medals at some events. Didn't Diana, Princess of Wales, and Sarah, Duchess of York, receive any medal at some special events during their marriage? As you found Diana's military appointments before, I think you can do this one too. Thanks. Keivan.f 08:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I am unable to find any. DrKiernan (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth

You are engaging in edit warfare by repeatedly revising the article to reflect your words exactly, without giving any substantial reason.

You have purposefully included a grammatical error three times in the past 24 hours.

3RR does not apply to unsourced material in the biography of a living person. The only errors are the ones you are introducing. DrKiernan (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer

Hello DrKiernan. I would like to bring some items to your attention regarding the article on Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer, and hopefully you are able to help. On March 31, User:1.43.24.108 made 4 small edits to that article here. Some of those edits are clearly wrong, and others are questionable. In addition, on April 24, 2014, User:177.4.15.205 had made a questionable edit here. Then on September 9, 2014, User:177.203.81.254 made an edit here, which changed the name in the infobox. In light of your great knowledge in this area, I wanted to bring this to your attention, particularly since this is a WP:BLP. Hopefully, you will find the time at some point to review this and make the necessary corrections to the article directly. Thanks for your help!. -- Blairall (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The 177.. IPs are sock puppets of indefinitely blocked User:Guilherme Styles. I have reverted most of these edits in line with MOS:HONORIFIC and usual infobox practice. DrKiernan (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help and for taking care of that so quickly. -- Blairall (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Benjamin Morrell

Thank you for your swift action regarding the above. Brianboulton (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching that, I think the edit conflict messed me up. Pishcal — ♣ 14:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Rescue at FAC talk page

Thank you so much, Doctor! Tim riley talk 16:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't resist the temptation to being labelled as "competent". DrKiernan (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Pah! As if regular editors like me aren't well aware of, and grateful for, your wonderfully secure touch on the tiller in so many articles. And in fact...

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		DrKiernan has frequently, unobtrusively, saved me and many other editors from hideous clangers. I raise a glass to you, Doctor! – Tim riley talk 16:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You're too generous, but thank you. I am only too happy to clink glasses with a fellow expert! DrKiernan (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Original research

Hi. What's the problem with the Countess of Wessex's ancestry? I mean does all of the paragraph have problem or a few sentences of it? Because if two or three sentences have problems, they can become removed. Keivan.f 07:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The explanations in her children's ancestry charts can be used instead, if it's possible. Keivan.f 07:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The table is unsourced and all but one of the references in the text are from before 1900, so Sophie cannot possibly be mentioned in them. Hence, all the material next to the 1800s sources is original research and unsourced too. DrKiernan (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What can I do now for improving that section? Can I add the information of James' and Louise's ancestry charts to her article? Keivan.f 08:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow you. All the information from their articles is already in Sophie's. DrKiernan (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

As it's written in Lady Louise's article in Misplaced Pages, she underwent an operation in January 2006 to correct her eyes' problems. Then I tried a Google search and I found news dated January 2014 in Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mirror, Daily Express, etc. showing that she has had an operation. Unfortunately I don't have access to these websites currently. Are they referring to her operation in 2006? If it's about a new operation I think we should mention it on Misplaced Pages. Keivan.f 10:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I've added another sentence to her article about that. DrKiernan (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• As you can see in Diana's page history, I have tried to expand her article since two years ago. Today, I copied a sentence from Camilla's article and added it to Diana's. Monkelese accused me of stealing his writing style. I removed that sentence and asked him to tell me every similarities that he sees between Diana and Camilla's articles so I can make them a little bit different. He just behaved like children and said that my behavior is childish and refused to talk anymore. Now I ask you. Do you see any similar sentences that have been copied from Camilla's article? Please look at both of those articles and tell me your opinion. Keivan.f 18:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• I did notice the similar sub-headings and that one sentence but I didn't think it strange at all. There are no other similarities in text as far as I'm aware. There are bound to be some similarities in article layout of course, since they are both aristocrats who married the Prince of Wales and their fame derives from that. DrKiernan (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• I changed similar sentences in the lead section. But I don't find any other similarities. Maybe the titles of some sections are the same, but their information and material is completely different. Keivan.f 20:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Princess...of Cambridge?

Is it that she will be known as above, or is my edit summary incorrect? Qexigator (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You are correct! DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Princess Charlotte

Hi. I think it's time to expand section's like "title and style" or "ancestry" in Charlotte's article. I was thinking about copying from George's article, but we need different sources. Keivan.f 14:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Also I had a question. As her name is Charlotte Elizabeth Diana, should we add a sentence to her article and also Diana's saying that she is named in honour of her grandmother? See the news, Time, Daily Mail and other websites has mentioned it. Keivan.f 20:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If something is covered extensively in reliable secondary sources, then that indicates that it is notable and should be included. DrKiernan (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And at last can you take a look at the Duke of Cambridge's biography on his official website? I can't understand how much his weight was at the time of his birth. His weight was 7lb 1 1/2oz?? Is that 1.5 ounces or 11.2 ounces or something else? Keivan.f 06:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's 1.5. DrKiernan (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Administrator noticeboard

Excuse me, but on the admin noticeboard , you removed my comment, probably accidentally. In any case, I have restored it. Thanks, Epic Genius (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it was accidental. DrKiernan (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Collaterals

Hi. I think I found a problem in the British Royal Family's article. Actually if you take a look at this PDF from the royal household, you'll see children of the Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra are not listed as collaterals. I can see only the name of children and grandchildren of Princesses Margaret and Anne and the name of Sarah, Duchess of York. A web address from Facebook is also added at the first sentence which I can't open, but I think Facebook can't be used as a source. I removed the descendants of Richard, Edward, Michael and Alexandra at first but then I reverted my edits and decided to confer with you. Keivan.f 10:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:FACEBOOK, it can be used if it is an official page. DrKiernan (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can't check the Facebook currently. Does it contain the names of Richard, Edward, Michael and Alexandra's children? Keivan.f 12:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a list of guests at the 2011 royal wedding. I don't see Viscount Severn, or Anne's grandchildren, or Marina Ogilvy listed there. The others, and Lady Saltoun, are included. DrKiernan (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Recently I read Prince George, Duke of Kent. I think it has enough sources and they're also reliable. Can you please take a look at this article and say why it needs additional citations? Keivan.f 10:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There are unsourced paragraphs and sentences tagged for citation needed. The tabloid sources used for the personal life section are very weak, and probably wouldn't be acceptable if George was still alive. DrKiernan (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed three parts that were tagged for citation needed. Actually I found nothing to support the accuracy of those sentences. I don't know what to do with his personal life section but there's a paragraph about his career during World War II that I think you can add reliable sources to it. Anyway, I can't understand the problem in the "personal life" section. Daily Mail is used as a source somewhere and also Daily Express but I think it doesn't make that much problem because as you said he has been dead for more than 70 years. They aren't also unreliable, because I have seen them used as sources in many articles. I think the other sources that are used in that section are books so they have no serious problem. Keivan.f 19:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

When do you think I can remove "ref improve"? Can I do it now? Keivan.f 19:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There are at least two people on the talk page complaining about the use of Picknett. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable removing the tag until Picknett is replaced, or confirmed, with a source viewed as more reliable. DrKiernan (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I ask too much, but what's Picknett? I'm asking because I want to see that I can solve the problem with the help of others or not. Keivan.f 05:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As said on the talk page, the main source credited in the article is a book written by Lynn Picknett that is considered poor quality. DrKiernan (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I changed the article. I removed some sentences and added new sources. Please take a look at it to see if we can remove "ref improve" tag or not. Keivan.f 16:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well done! I think you should remove it now, and see whether anyone adds it back, which I suspect they won't. DrKiernan (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Also I improved Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester's article. You can take a look at this one to see if it's problems are solved or not. I'm going to nominate Diana, Princess of Wales as a good article in the next few months. Do you think it has the potential to become a good article or not? Keivan.f 05:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So these kinds of categories should be used in some special articles. Then why do we have Category:British equestrians on Camilla's article? Or categories like British polo players, British horticulturists or British watercolourists on Charles's article? I really don't understand. The Royal Household's website says that Diana was a professional pianist and dancer. If those categories are used in Charles and Camilla's articles, then there shouldn't be any problem for using the categories that I added in Diana's article. Charles and Camilla also aren't famous for equestrianism or polo playing but because their professional in these areas these categories are added to their articles. If you don't agree with me, then I think you should remove some of their categories too. Keivan.f 19:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Charles is famous for playing polo; his watercolours are published and exhibited; and his work on the garden at Highgrove, which is open to the public and hence exhibited, is award-winning and published. Camilla is an amateur horse-rider -- I think the category is inappropriate in her case. Diana was never a professional dancer or pianist and never performed publicly. I can find nothing at the website about her doing so or being a professional. DrKiernan (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The section about her teenage years and childhood mentions this. However I think you're right. Diana had never played piano or performed as a ballerina on stage in front of public eye. Keivan.f 06:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The article, and the sources, say only that she studied ballet and the piano. She also studied mathematics but that doesn't make her a mathematician; it merely makes her a student. DrKiernan (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that Camilla also doesn't seem to be an equestrian. Because she attended a pony club in her childhood or knows how to ride a horse it doesn't mean that she's a famous horse rider. If so, this category should be added to Elizabeth II's article too. Another thing that I wanted to mention is that I removed a sentence from the lead section of Camilla's article that says she has adopted the title "Duchess of Rothesay" in Scotland because of the strong association of the primary title "Princess of Wales" with Diana. Actually Diana was also Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland as she was the wife of the Duke of Rothesay. Camilla only adopted the title Duchess of Cornwall because of Diana. Both of them used the title Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland. But my explained edit was reverted by a major contributor to Camilla's article without a clear reason. I don't know why but we have some kinds of problems with each other. I think if you make these contributions it'll be better. For example when I removed third-level headings in Camilla's article he reverted my edits, but when you removed them he didn't. Keivan.f 08:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Just now I realized that ancestry section of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge's article is removed. Do you know why? I think it has to be in the article as most of the royals have their ancestry chart in their articles. Keivan.f 07:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User: 50.200.230.124

Hello again DrKiernan, Could I please draw your attention to this user's deletion of material from Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia, which I have restored. This user has already been blocked once, but continues to vandalise a number of articles. Is it not time for a extended block? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so! DrKiernan (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please help: align left

Hi DrKiernan. I see you worked on the infobox on this page before. Could you please have a look at the bullet points? I am trying to tidy up the box and wanted to left-align the bullet points, but it is not working. Your help would be appreciated. Regards, thanks Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Great stuff, man! Nothing like knowing how to work a bit of magic. And now I can alaways refer back to this one to see how you did it. Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

King George V letter during WWI

Hi DrKiernan,
I've just uploaded a scan of a letter, signed by King George, written to thank a widow for her husband's service in WWI for Britain. As the nominator for the the King George V Featured Article I thought you might be interested in using it in the article - in the word war I section. It's a item from the Europeana 1914-18 crowdsourced collection that I'm working with for a mass-upload with the GLAMwiki Toolset. This just happened to be in my test run of 3 items. Sincerely, Wittylama 08:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Succession to the Crown Act 2013 reflist

Succession to the Crown Act 2013 has been accumulating reds in the reflist from as long ago as January 2013 Looks like a template problem. Is there a simple way of putting this right? Qexigator (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Succession to the British throne

Somehow, I thought the article was primarily about the British throne. Where did I get my signals crossed :( GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User:24.159.125.20

Hello DrKiernan, With reference to your note to the above IP user, I have already left a note to Materialscientist regarding the activities of this IP. Apart from test and and vandalism, they are adding overlinking - against the advice of WP:LINK. I have already reverted over twenty of these and left a note to no avail. Can I leave this with you please? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A favour

Could you please delete all the pages in my userspace? I have created a whole mess of them throughout the years, and many are simply redirects now. Surtsicna (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've left one item because it is transcluded at other user spaces. However, you are the only author and it is in your userspace, so I believe you are within your rights to delete it if you want. Let me know if so. DrKiernan (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would like my userspace completely clean. Thank you, by the way! Surtsicna (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

QEII birth name

In your revert you say "These are her current forenames rather than a name she held at birth and no longer does. Her "birth name" was perhaps Elizabeth Windsor or Princess Elizabeth of York." But the article says: "She was baptised by the Anglican Archbishop of York, Cosmo Gordon Lang, in the private chapel of Buckingham Palace on 29 May, and named Elizabeth after her mother, Alexandra after George V's mother, who had died six months earlier, and Mary after her paternal grandmother." citing Hoey, p. 40. So, she was born "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary", any objections to changing it back? Darx9url (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems like the articles on the other British Royals also leave out "born", so let's leave it as is. However, the convention on other BLPs is to use (born Firstname Lastname; Birthyear - Deathyear), I hope there's a good reason to not follow the standard convention. Darx9url (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It's because royals generally don't use surnames and their styles change. When she was born she was known as Princess Elizabeth of York; she became The Princess Elizabeth in 1936. Their Christian names remain the same throughout life, which in her case are Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. "born Name" is used when someone has a different name now from what they had when they were born. BTW, I believe I wrote that particular sentence that you're quoting and added the source that you've quoted. DrKiernan (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Maria Leopoldina of Austria

Do you have any idea of what were the exact titles of the Austrian imperial family between 1790 and 1815? I'm trying to figure it out what was Maria Leopoldona's (Pedro I of Brazil's wife) title before she got married. She is always called "archduchess", but I don't know what else. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

For her, no, sorry. The styles of her father and grandfather are given at http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/royalstyle.htm#austria. DrKiernan (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I contacted the owner of the website and he pointed me out a couple of books that explained me the titles. Do you know whether the offices in the British household (wardrobe keeper, chamberlain, page, etc) made the person a "noble"?--Lecen (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say no. In my opinion, nobility is conferred by a peerage or a knighthood rather than an office. However, there is no legal definition of "nobility" in British law as far as I'm aware, so others may think differently. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Grover Cleveland page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Queen Mother cats

See here She is in at least one "English X" cat in addition to the "British X" cats. She should only be in one or the other. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Olivier

Sorry about that, I had my arse about my elbow. Cassianto 18:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)