Hi. When it comes to British (as not restricted to English) Royalty, do you care to have a look at this? Or this? Maybe the latter is of less interest for you. But I found it here so it seems to qualify through "censorship" by those ignoble... ;-) Regards, -- Klingon83 ( talk) 16:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
For spotting a typo on Albert Kesselring Hawkeye7 ( talk) 09:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC) |
Hi. There has been an argument over the article on Max Mosley, son of the 6th Baronet Mosley, over something so simple as whether if we should include the name of his parents in law, or father in law, and information on his own children. They even claim he's not nobility. It's a false question, but some people, from outside lineages' issues, insists in not adding them. The discussion was brought up by User:4u1e on User talk:Konakonian, Talk:Max Mosley and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. I'd thank you that you'd join with your good judgement. Konakonian Konakonian ( talk) 17:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I would kindly ask you not to go around accusing anyone of vandalism. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence. I never disputed Arthur's status as heir. I only disputed the need for a succession box for every detail in the person's life. The list of heirs to the English throne is largely based on original research and is, for most part, completely anachronistic. We have a succession box for his titles. We do not need one for the position of the King of England's first son, the Queen of Castile's favourite son-in-law, the Duke of Burgundy's most senior brother-in-law, etc. Surtsicna ( talk) 17:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: I see why you would want to remove a succession box as heir of England from Mary Stuart's article for example, but there are problems imo with removing them altogether in all articles. Edward VI for example was heir to the englisch throne but never officially installed as Prince of Wales. What do you do in such a case?-- Feuerrabe ( talk) 18:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The edit summary says quite clearly: "the succession box is absurd anyway and most of the list is based on strictly forbidden original research". I've seen no consensus to put the succession boxes. All I've seen is people complaining about the list's inaccuracy. It is obvious to me as well, and so is its anachronism. As for Edward VI, he was undisputably Duke of Cornwall. That title highlists his status as heir apparent quite enough. Surtsicna ( talk) 17:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to show you this file: Tabula Peutingeriana lG, -- Klingon83 ( talk) 13:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right to think that the issue box needed tying to proper sources (as with anything), but I think that cause would be better favoured if we could find a paper or book that systematically addressed the issue. In particular, it looks as if the Venetian source is primary (you'll forgive me, I haven't actually checked). Anything over such a controversial matter, adding in a foreign relations element, would be better supported by modern sources. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 11:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Feuerrabe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Only took me around 10 minutes... ;) MrMarkBGregory ( talk) 12:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. When it comes to British (as not restricted to English) Royalty, do you care to have a look at this? Or this? Maybe the latter is of less interest for you. But I found it here so it seems to qualify through "censorship" by those ignoble... ;-) Regards, -- Klingon83 ( talk) 16:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
For spotting a typo on Albert Kesselring Hawkeye7 ( talk) 09:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC) |
Hi. There has been an argument over the article on Max Mosley, son of the 6th Baronet Mosley, over something so simple as whether if we should include the name of his parents in law, or father in law, and information on his own children. They even claim he's not nobility. It's a false question, but some people, from outside lineages' issues, insists in not adding them. The discussion was brought up by User:4u1e on User talk:Konakonian, Talk:Max Mosley and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. I'd thank you that you'd join with your good judgement. Konakonian Konakonian ( talk) 17:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I would kindly ask you not to go around accusing anyone of vandalism. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence. I never disputed Arthur's status as heir. I only disputed the need for a succession box for every detail in the person's life. The list of heirs to the English throne is largely based on original research and is, for most part, completely anachronistic. We have a succession box for his titles. We do not need one for the position of the King of England's first son, the Queen of Castile's favourite son-in-law, the Duke of Burgundy's most senior brother-in-law, etc. Surtsicna ( talk) 17:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: I see why you would want to remove a succession box as heir of England from Mary Stuart's article for example, but there are problems imo with removing them altogether in all articles. Edward VI for example was heir to the englisch throne but never officially installed as Prince of Wales. What do you do in such a case?-- Feuerrabe ( talk) 18:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The edit summary says quite clearly: "the succession box is absurd anyway and most of the list is based on strictly forbidden original research". I've seen no consensus to put the succession boxes. All I've seen is people complaining about the list's inaccuracy. It is obvious to me as well, and so is its anachronism. As for Edward VI, he was undisputably Duke of Cornwall. That title highlists his status as heir apparent quite enough. Surtsicna ( talk) 17:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to show you this file: Tabula Peutingeriana lG, -- Klingon83 ( talk) 13:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right to think that the issue box needed tying to proper sources (as with anything), but I think that cause would be better favoured if we could find a paper or book that systematically addressed the issue. In particular, it looks as if the Venetian source is primary (you'll forgive me, I haven't actually checked). Anything over such a controversial matter, adding in a foreign relations element, would be better supported by modern sources. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 11:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Feuerrabe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Only took me around 10 minutes... ;) MrMarkBGregory ( talk) 12:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)