Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:21, 7 March 2017

George V WWI campaign medals

I notice you deleted the mention of the king's WWI campaign medals, sourced to the Complete Peerage. I take your point about 'honours awarded to oneself are not really honours' but that was far from my mind. I believed I was correcting a noticeable omission, as he did wear the decorations (witness several post WWI full dress uniform pictures) and I thought their presence on his chest and in record should be acknowledged. However it would be dismissive to consider it was a case of appropriating campaign medals for himself ex officio. Those three medals were not all the medals awarded for service in WWI, and note there were other campaigns taking place in his reign that qualified for the Army and Navy General Service Medals and India General Service Medals and Africa General Service Medals - but he did not award them to himself (rightly so as he never visited, let alone served in, these further flung campaigns). (Did George VI did similar in WWII?)Cloptonson (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Prince Albert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@DrKay: I trust you will support some small, apparently esoteric, amendments which I have just made to the article about Prince Albert? These concern : Parliament also objected to Albert being created... (instead of : Parliament even refused to make...) ; curriculae ; escutcheon of pretence ; etc... Please advise - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. I feel as if I should spell it out further for clarity; there are/were two schools of thought : Boutell & Fox-Davies. I subscribe to Boutell's via JB-L (which not applicable in Saxe-Coburg cases which countermanded by Parliament), but the way you present the academic argument on Wiki is misleading - nonetheless, since these are small items & we agree on most others, that is fantastic, don't you think?

I think most modern heralds would follow Fox-Davies rather than Boutell. An inescutcheon of pretence in English heraldry is used by a man placing his wife's arms on his own, which is why Boutell found Albert's arms odd (because they are the 'wrong' way around). Fox-Davies points out that an inescutcheon of the direct paternal arms is not uncommon in German heraldry when the arms are quartered. DrKay (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear! John Brooke-Little edited Boutell's Heraldry. But, you cite(d) Boutell more than you did Fox-Davies - I am confused!!! Long & short of it is that the Act of Parliament trumped all of this... L'honorable (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. let's work together svp?
PPS. this way of going about things can be disruptive unless accord is reached... (& what I mean by that is that I don't think most modern heralds subscribe to Fox-Davies' formulae - not at all - for instance, he was most Victorian about putting as many quarterings as possible on a coat of arms, etc...)
For Formula(e) - delete and insert raison d'être, L'honorable (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

What Act of Parliament?

I didn't write that section. It's mostly User:Sodacan's work

Yes, it is better to discuss issues before editing the article and then only do so after agreement. DrKay (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

qv. Titles Deprivation Act 1917. Best, L'honorable (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
anyway, I hate to have to do this, but the article is still starred as a featured article... It can never be until these things are sorted (will they ever be?). L'honorable (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing in the act regulating heraldry. DrKay (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@DrKay: I see that you haven overridden my factual corrections with the statement quote from Pinches and Pinches should remain faithful to the original | these appear to be Aveling's words; Boutell says "an anomaly in Heraldry, and indeed an heraldic contradiction for which I am altogether unable to offer any explanation." I could easily put the matter straight but I fear that you are continuing on the warpath as you have indicated so as to have me blocked again. I am prepared to correct the text once you give the all-clear that you are not trying to get me blocked. If I hear nothing then one can only presume that you are at best ambivalent... L'honorable (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

DrKay : since my message above you have launched the most disagreeable vitriol on my Talk page :

qte

Your recent editing history at Albert, Prince Consort shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

unqte.

This is only part of it, your missive is much more considerable than that.

You have reverted in their entirety my corrections to the Prince Albert article, make all manner of assertions, yet when it is put to you that I wish to work in tandem with you, not against you, you have nothing to say. I just wonder why? This does not seem to me to be in the slightest bit friendly or co-operative, thus contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages.

Why did you not yourself simply work in a co-operative manner, rather than launch this broadside which inevitably does much to reduce co-operation rather than fostering it?

Anyway, I don't know about you, but my sole aim is for Wiki's info to be improved (and accurately - which is presently not the case because you ignored my corrections preferring to launch an attack about MOS) thus I suggest that we draw a line under this episode and start to work with each other from now on. What do you think? RSVP. Best, L'honorable (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I've explained it all already in great depth, as have many others. As usual, you are completely blind to reason. DrKay (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@DrKay: I have only just spotted this, but suffice to say that you have clearly got a grudge against me which is not going to be healed today. Your in-depth allegations have been answered in full, thus I am not completely blind to reason. For some reason you cannot stand me FULL STOP. I am sorry about this & would much like with you rather than against. If you would be so kind as to explain your grievance, then we could surely sort things out. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You may have missed my response because discussion is spread over too many pages. Hence, I am closing this one. DrKay (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@DrKay: you are right about that - the discussion has spread like wild fire and as you attest boils down to whether or not I am Mabelina. I am not, but I am glad that we have at last got to the bottom of why you are so keen to see me blocked (nonetheless I am not so naïve as to think this is the last I will hear about this). When will my divorce ever end? L'honorable (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Do not post at this talk page again. The discussion here is closed. DrKay (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Abdul Karim

Thank you for correcting some of my incorrect edits on this page (especially nowiki, as I misread that). I wanted to let you know the only thing I changed back was "platonic relationship" into "relationship". I explained my reasoning on the talk page - I'm not trying to assert that their relationship was in fact sexual, just that we don't actually know. To have it say "platonic" (or sexual, for that matter) in the lead would seem to insinuate information that we simply do not know today. Just wanted to let you know so that you didn't think I was simply trying to revert some of your change backs :) Garchy (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There are various other formulas that can be used, such as "The Queen's maternal affection for Karim led to friction.." or cut it altogether: "The other members of the Royal Household distrusted Karim and felt themselves to be superior to him." DrKay (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw your second edit summary after I had replied on the talk page - your argument about modern audiences does make sense. While "platonic" may not seem necessary to me I can understand where not having it may add to confusion with the reading audience. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Garchy (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hi. Recently I found these four images (1; 2; 3; 4) of some Turkish actors that have been uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. The main problem is that I think none of them are free, and I wished to nominate them for deletion but I couldn't as I'm not familiar with how things work there. Would you please explain how these files can be deleted? Keivan.f 23:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I usually use the "Nominate for deletion" link on the left-hand side. DrKay (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Slow-burn heraldry edit war. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 22:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 128.40.9.164 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)