| Revision as of 12:28, 14 June 2007 editMarskell (talk | contribs)22,422 edits →Poop: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:36, 14 June 2007 edit undoDrKay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators159,713 edits add db tagNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{db-userreq}} | |||
| {| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" | |||
| |- | |||
| | {{User Featured Article|George VI of the United Kingdom}} {{User Featured Article|Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon}} | |||
| |- | |||
| | {{User Featured Article|Edward VIII of the United Kingdom}} {{User Featured Article|George V of the United Kingdom}} | |||
| |- | |||
| | {{User Featured Article|George I of Greece}} {{User Featured Article|Princess Alice of Battenberg}} | |||
| |- | |||
| |} | |||
| ==Welcome!== | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 14:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks!== | |||
| I was unable to see that in my studies, however, I will take a look. Also, if anyone was rude or angry it was the person who made that remark. There was no need for it. If you and rest disagreed you could have simply just fixed it and kindly mentioned reasons on my talk page. | |||
| No, I will not be editing that page because if there is one thing being a rational person has taught me. You can not rationalize with irrational people, so it is useless to argue and get into a big fight someone who makes such rude comments. | |||
| But, thank you again! ] 18:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wikimedia Commons== | |||
| ] | |||
| I noticed you re-uploaded an image of George VI to Misplaced Pages from the Wikimedia Commons, but it is not necessary. In fact, that is the exact opposite of what you should be doing! :) The Wikimedia Commons is a repository for images that can be used on ''all'' Wikimedia projects, including the english Misplaced Pages. The file name of the image there can be used here and it will still work. For example, click the image of George VI to the right and you will see that it says that it is from the Commons. | |||
| So, for future reference, it is not necessary to re-upload Commons images. Also, please consider uploading all of your images to the Commons (as long as they are public domain or free to use) so they may be used in all languages, Wikinews, Wikiquote, and so on. Thanks. --] (] - ]) 03:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Czech lands: 1918-1992 > Czechoslovakia== | |||
| {{award2|image=Barnstar-stone2-noback.png|size=100px|topic=The Epic Barnstar|text=For your work merging ] into ] I award you this Epic Barnstar. --] 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)}} | |||
| ==Catch-22== | |||
| Thanks for your input into Catch-22 and character articles. Although you probably have, make sure you read through all the talk on Catch-22 about what we are trying to achieve with the Characters/Article. | |||
| I agree with the merging or Nately's Whore's kid sister into Nately's Whore - in fact it is likely that it will be merged into Nately anyway. If possible use the Character Template suggested by Wikiproject:Novels - obviously a cut down version for minor characters (e.g. ]) and major characters (e.g. ]). | |||
| Also I dont think the list should be merged. As explained in the talk, I believe the list in the main article is far too long and needs to be cut down to only the top 10/15 major characters - those who the main themes revolve around. The external list can then list all the characters for those that are interested. Given time I will do this myself, though it you wanted to help out that would be great. | |||
| Cheers ] 13:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. The main reason that I have not merged relevant characters already is that I did not want to until I wrote a decent article for each first. | |||
| ==Irish Parliamentary Party== | |||
| Hi, | |||
| About your revert to ]. The categorisation and naming of 19th century Irish political parties and politicians is very inconsistent. You insist that Burke was not ], but ]. Yet, if you look at the articles on both they are describing the same organisation. Both articles state that the IPP and NP split in 1890 and remained divided until 1900. | |||
| In the ] article, for example, there is no distinction made between candidates nominated by the ] or the ]. | |||
| As it stands (well until last night when I started to make more accurate categorisations), the ] was being used wildly to include people from ] to ]. | |||
| What I'm proposing is to try and establish where MPs stood and to categorise them accordingly into ] and ], which are sub-categories of ]. On top of that, we should stop using the generic label applied to all Irish politicians from 1880 (Nationalist), and try to use the names of the organisations that actually existed (such as IPP).--] 17:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==All-for-Ireland League== | |||
| Hello, I wish to acknowledge with appreciation your concern for detail under the above image which page I also set up together with D.D. Sheehan and most of O'Brien. I find the inclusion on the O'Brien page fine as he founded the party. I avoided including the image in Sheehan due to overcrowding it and taking from his central work for land reform and rural housing. I am inclined to wish to remove the image from his page again but first want to check out your view as you have done nice work in linking names and categories correctly, thank you.<br>] 11:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your understanding reply: I have instead just repositioned the image a block higher up, where I feel it looks less constricting. All the best. ] 12:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)<br> | |||
| I see two small problems: you replaced John Walsh Cork South with O'Donnell which is not correct, according to Walker's Parliamentary Results in Ireland, 1801-1922. I only see a Thomas O'Donnell in West Kerry, who was an Independent (sympathetic to O'Brien). It would have to have been a Cork constituency anyway as the AFILs were all Cork MPs in 1910, Tim Healy definitely Cork NE in a 1911 by-electon replacing Moreton Frewen (Healy was defeated in Louth in 1910) !! Can you please re-research further and correct. ] 13:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :To your suggestion, I would prefer to keep the image simple and only list the AFIL as its MP representatives stood after the second election December 1910 and by-election 1911. I would ignore O'Donnell, or mentioning Tim Healy previously in Louth (under the image). Such details concerning the January election should be inserted on the history page of the AFIL I agree, otherwise there is too much conflicting detail under the image which is not the best place to detail both elections. Greetings ] 22:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==George V and Nicholas II== | |||
| Look, this is not just my opinion. It's hard to find a book on either man that doesn't mention the resemblance. Your contention that they do not, in the absence of an actual published source, is original research. And the two were first cousins. Are you really denying any family resemblance? Their mothers looked very alike, as well. ] 16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That the two men physically resembled each other is not to say anything about their political views, which were indeed different (although people have often suggested that Nicholas would have been a good constitutional monarch of England - he just had the misfortune to think it was his duty to be an absolute despot of Russia). And they look way more alike than either looks like Ferdinand of Bulgaria. And I don't see how it's potentially racist to note that two first cousins physically resembled each other. I'm no longer sure what's actually at stake in the article, but I still don't think we should say that they didn't actually look similar unless you can find a source which says that. ] 14:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==George V of the United Kingdom== | |||
| Thank you for removing the comma that I carelessly left in when I was changing the order of the words. ] 17:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Featured article review== | |||
| I noticed your posts at Featured article review (FARs). It isn't encouraged to post so many FARs at the same time. FAR doesn't simply have the resources to cope with so many. I hope you can understand this. ] 09:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I second LuciferMorgan. Can you manage to review all of those simultaneously? — ] (]) — 09:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes; we cannot review so many at a time. Perhaps you can place one at a time; as the backlog clears, you can gradually add them. That way, they can get a correct treatment. Thanks. — ''']]''' 09:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You may also put a notice on the talk page of the article you think needs review with reasons why you think it needs review, so that page-watchers can proactively work on the necessary improvements. ] 16:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==George I== | |||
| Please, don't get disappointed. Your article is featurable. Even now! It does needs some fixing per the current FA criteria: | |||
| *When you use online sources, take advantage of ] or ]. | |||
| *Avoid listy sections, and lists in general - prefer prose. | |||
| *Rewrite the lead properly, and with nice paragraphs per ]. | |||
| You can make this article FA! Would you like to have a look at ]?--] 18:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon== | |||
| I passed Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as a Good Article. It looks like it more than meets the criteria. Thanks also for your help with the grand duchesses articles. I'll still need to do more work on the article about ], but your comments will give me a starting point. --] 02:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==George I of Greece on WP:BIO To-Do List== | |||
| My apologies. I was being entirely too efficient and overlooked it when I was fixing up the list. Thanks for correcting my error. ] 15:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Project to work-group== | |||
| Hiya Dr, could you please explain to me why it is that you've reclassified some of the minor British royalty articles to the work-group? Cheers – ''']]]''' 18:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Peer review== | |||
| Hi. I'm a little busy at present, but will see if I can comment on your other peer reviews soon. Try listing biographical articles you want reviewed at both PR and ], as listing it there also will get you more feedback. It's a shame there's not many commenting at peer review to be honest. As I said in one of the reviews though, try getting a few to review the 1. a. criteria (of ]) which asks for "compelling, brilliant prose" - another user who's good, other than the one I mentioned, is ], so you could see if he's busy or not also. Good luck with the articles. ] 01:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Loch Arkaig Treasure== | |||
| Hi, thanks for reviewing this. I've tried to meet your suggestions. If you are willing to take a look I'd be grateful. Any other comments are welcome.--]<sup>g</sup> 19:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Baldev Raj Gupta== | |||
| I've moved this to an AfD debate from your prod. A book reference showed a 1983 date, with a different transliteration of the author's name, so I felt that evidence of arguable notabiity might be there if editors want to dig it out. I've added it to the ]. --] 08:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Variation on prod template== | |||
| Hi, I've created a {{tl|prod-nn}} template that may be of interest. ] 19:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Barbara Dare assessment== | |||
| Surely it's not a stub, it has references, an infobox, and subsections. ] says 3-10 sentences, which this is far beyond. I'd say start-class. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Stub assessment is based on the stub tag at the bottom of the article. Change it if you disagree. I didn't read the text past "porn actress", and so my assessment is necessarily arbitrary. ] 18:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks. Stub tag removed, article re-assessed per FAQ. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Edward the Abdicator== | |||
| Re: your edit summary ("Not just the UK - Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, Ireland, India, and 40-odd other countries)" - I thought all of that ''was'' the UK. :) Noticed your philosophy on your user page - have at it! Most of the time, I feel like ] at the ]. Cheers, ] 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==George VI of the United Kingdom== | |||
| Can you shed any light on the GA status of this article; it is needed for GimmeBot to build {{t1|ArticleHistory}}. Dr pda's ArticleHistory script, ] history and the article talk page confirm that it is/was a GA, yet the template is not listed on the talk page and I can't find the article at ]. It appears that {{user|ErleGrey}} (who passed it GA) never added the GA template to the page, but I haven't figured out why the article isn't listed at GA, since he did add it there once. A record of the GA template is needed on the talk page for GimmeBot to build the article history. ] (]) 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I recall that ] just added GA to the class parameter in the WP:Biography template and didn't add the GA template itself. The id number of the reviewed version was oldid=107054364 at 15:52 12th February. ] 17:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks (yes, that is the oldid returned by Dr pda's articlehistory script). I've queried {{user|Gimmetrow}} to see if he knows why it was removed from ]; once we get to the bottom of this, we'll add the appropriate template to the talk page, so GimmeBot can build the history. ] (]) 18:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your GA nomination of Edward VIII abdication crisis== | |||
| The article ] you nominated as a ] has passed ], see ] for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Congratulations! ] 03:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bowes-Lyon== | |||
| Hello DrKiernan. This http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Elizabeth_Bowes-Lyon&curid=46744&diff=118304428&oldid=118291773 | |||
| is a great edit! I love it when an editor turns an ''impression'' into a factual statement with a deft use of a source. Good work.--]<sup><small><font color="Orange">]</font></small></sup> 17:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Exile of Duke of Windsor== | |||
| Please check the standard biographies (Donaldson, Ziegler): it is clear that George VI considered that the Duke of Windsor must not return to England at all whereas the Duke of Windsor himself assumed that he could take the role of younger brother with Kent and Gloucester after a three-or-so year cooling-off period. ] 12:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Princess Alice of Battenberg== | |||
| I've added cite requests to the "Marriage" section for you to fill in order to meet a user's request for more cites in that section. The "Titles" information please integrate into the body of text where appropriate, and then delete the section. I'm a little busy at present, but on the 29th I'll get back to you with more ways of meeting reviewers requests in the FAC. ] 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Congratulations on your successful FAC. ] 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == FAR and User:Emsworth == | |||
| Hi DrKiernan. You're recent FA contributions have been exceptional and I thought you might be able to help with something. I just posted ] a long thread about a once-upon-a-time user who made massive contributions to political articles, particularly British royalty, but whose FAs are increasingly underweight. I thought you might have some ideas. If the exact details aren't clear, post to me directly. Cheers, ] 21:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Cecilia Loftus == | |||
| Sorry, you're suggesting this article be merged - normally, you'd indicate who with, and also provide some explanation for the merger. Neither of these have been done, perhaps you'd consider explaining, you probably have a good reason. Thanks ] 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Just reread what the merger actually proposes, apologies for not falling in the first time, but it has my support. ] 21:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Wallis Simpson == | |||
| Hey, good article, enjoyed it, I've added a few comments at the FAC, feel free to do with them as you wish! Let me know if I can be of any further assistance... Cheers! ] 12:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, DrK. | |||
| :For personal curiousity it would certainly be nice if the question of Wallis Simpson's birth and christening could be resolved, but I think for the article we probably simply need to report that there is a dispute. It's a dispute that I fear we can't resolve, as both Higham and King have been less exact in specifying their sources than we'd prefer. Both refer to the 1900 census sheet (but neither actually provides a usable ''citation''; the informant was presumably Wallis's grandmother); both allude to interviews but do not specify which information comes from which person, etc. Higham is more interested in sensationalism than accuracy (his books are subtitled "The Scandalous Truth about the Century's Most Infamous Woman" or "Secret Lives of the Duchess of Windsor" in various editions); he discounts information (the date of the christening given at the time of the confirmation; the dates as given by the Duchess in her autobiography; the ages that appear on subsequent censuses, etc.) when it doesn't support his hypothesis; he dispenses misinformation (Episcopalians won't baptise bastard children, causing them to suffer eternal damnation, etc.). I think King's scenario makes far more sense than a 17-month wait before marriage (supposedly to cover up an illegitimate birth, which it could not, at that point do) and a conspiracy to lie about Wallis's age to cover up her bastard origins - said conspiracy beginning not in infancy, but ''after'' 1900 and ''before'' 1910, after her father's death, and years after anyone might recall her parent's wedding date. (Bessie Warfield is 13 years old on the 1910 Census taken on 25 April 1910), I'm perhaps more inclined than many to discount Higham claimed based on his other work, and I wouldn't say the same for King, who admits that he is interested in a sympathetic portrayal of Wallis, but seems to me still to be less inclined to distort what evidence there is. In this case, Higham's scenario simply doesn't make much sense to me. Still, people have believed it, and so we report it. In terms of the article, I also think it's incorrect to baldly state that Simpson was not christened, since even Higham admits there are records (non-contemporaneous, though still records for all that) that state she was. (And Higham's nonsense about her therefore being in hell is an absurd misrepresentation of Church of England doctrine.) (FWIW, I also wouldn't characterize the mistress of a British monarch as a ''maitresse en titre'' - I'd reserve that for ''official'' mistresses, which she was not. I'd expect to find a ''matiress en titre'' serving under :) a Louis, not a David.) - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 01:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You've made a lot of changes to that document now - some of them I just reverted as they appear to be just unilateral changes. I think we need to bring this whole matter to a wider forum to gain greater input from the community rather than have just a handful of us make all the changes. Thoughts? - ] ] 07:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Battle of Midway RFPP == | |||
| Thanks for notifying me of that. I'll be sure to voice my opinion on that. Again, thanks! ]] 19:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re. Declined protection == | |||
| Hello and thank you for contacting me. The guideline I cited was apparently modified at ] very recently, I was not aware that the procedure of declining protection requests for Today's Featured Articles is now disputed and undergoing discussions. Rather good news actually. Regards, <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 15:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == RfA == | |||
| I have a question for you on your RfA. I'd like you to answer. '''Cheers, ] (]) (])''' 00:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Reverts == | |||
| In total, you have. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, '''whether involving the same or different material each time'''." You reverted with me earlier. However, I'll overlook it; won't speak for Raul though. ] 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Popups == | |||
| Saw your note on your RfA; take a look at ], which tells you how to install a method of doing reverts without reloading pages. It's also a very useful thing to have independent of the revert capability. ] ] 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Poop == | |||
| DrK, I really admire your contributions, including your own FAs, and your desire to aid the project. Don't spoil that by coming to my page to add snide comments. ] 12:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, a joke that I found snide, combined with an edit summary meant to belittle the point. Perhaps he'll come back and edit again in six weeks or six months. Or perhaps that edit was the only one he'll ever make—a good faith attempt to correct a sentence. Which, of course, he wouldn't have been able to do if the page had been s-protected. You don't need to point out that for every good anon edit you'll find a number of bad ones, as everyone editing a while knows that. That the ninety-nine guilty are allowed to go free to leave the door open for the one innocent is foundational here. We wouldn't get any new accounts if we didn't keep it in mind. ] 12:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:36, 14 June 2007
Please use the rationale parameter to explain why this user talk page should be deleted. (E.g., {{db-u1|rationale= }}.) Thanks!
Per the User page guidelines, user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons. In addition, nonpublic personal information and potentially libellous information posted to your talk page may be removed by making a request for oversight.
Users who have left Misplaced Pages may be added to Misplaced Pages:Missing Wikipedians.