![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Did you notice that the family history article has a proposal to merge it into genealogy? I am not sure I would link to the first? Hmmm -- RebekahThorn ( talk) 11:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment one way or another. Bearian ( talk) 20:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I notice your editing and I know you might be interested in this subject. A new user who has been doing some fairly controversial edits has made an ISOGG article in a fairly awkward way. It will probably be deleted if it is not improved. This could then make any eventual new creation of the article a bit more difficult.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Guidelines desperately needed. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 11:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
|
In recognition of your work on the article about the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, I would like you to imagine enjoying the taste of my grandmother's masterpiece dessert. An imaginary glass of pomegranate juice would go perfectly with it! Surtsicna ( talk) 13:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
Glass of wine |
May you find many more ancestors! Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC) |
Dear Helen, please correct me if I am wrong, but from your recent "thank you" for a comment over at the Modern Paganism talk page, I am given to the impression that you are yourself interested in the subject ? If so, I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look over at a page I created, Etymology of Wicca, which I am currently putting through a peer review; unfortunately, due to the highly specialist nature of the article, no one seems to be commenting just yet. Of course there is no obligation to do so, but if you do have any comments, that would be great, as I am hoping to push this article up to FAC soon! Best, Midnightblueowl ( talk) 11:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi HelenOnline, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert any other type of edit - such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with - can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, use a manual edit summary instead of using the rollback tool. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 07:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen, Please see my subject headline. I really think some broadsheet jounalists have brillianty encapsulated the social status of the Middleton family/ backround and should thus be accurately quoted. What do you think? Thanks again for your interest in this matter. Cheers, Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 ( talk) 09:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Done I have
added it properly but cannot guarantee it will stay as is.
Helen
Online
09:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen Thanks so much for your work on the Family of Kate Middleton page. A student suggested a LINK on the "Blue-blooded word" - probably "gentry" but we are Victorians so, if you are English, you may know which word is best suited.
Also - if you talk to someone that "runs" the Kate Middleton page - do you think you could gat a similar line put in? We have had conferences here (Jounalist's) which highlight the MANY recent articles in the last few months which expose excellent research into her father's "smattering of blue-blooded ancestors".
Maybe, as these folk are all Luptons (apart from Viscount Bryce - a brother-in-law of Sir Charles Lupton)- this refernce could be juxtaposed alongside the Lupton reference on Kate's page. This would give a MUCH clearer view of Kate's background ie the Luptons, we know now, were not simply an "active business family"! Cheers and thanks so much Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 ( talk) 10:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen You are so quick to respond. Thanks!
We noticed that there is a very interesting reference to the discovery of British Pathe film which has Kate's ancestors- great great grandfather and his brothers- in it alongsoide William's ancestors ie - royalty.
Would this information - which we gather has been in many newspaprs and in "on-line" articles - be of interest to wikipaedia readers who are intersted in Kate?
What do you think? Cheers Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 ( talk) 10:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Helen, You might like to reference this above article too - shouldn't it be a reference for the bit that talks about the "Luptons hosting royalty". We are sure that that is where this information came from.
PS do you not think it a good idea to put the British Pathe information under the Kate middleton ancestry section on her OWN page? Cheers again Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 ( talk) 11:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen, Thankyou for being so helpful. I am not a computer whiz. Hoping you can help -
I have read in a number of articles that Kate's great grandmother was from a "landed gentry" family. Infact page 3 of the UK Telegraph and also the Daily Mail had pictures of BEECHWOOD estate grade 2 listed etc etc . These shots of the estate - in the Lupton family until 1998 - had not been seen by the public. Much of the estate's farmland was sold off in the 1950's creating vast wealth for Francis' descendants. By 2000, the Georgian mansion itself was sold - more money for Francis' descendants.
The word "aristocratic" was used to describe Olive in the BBC tv show screened befor Kate and William married. It seems that "clever" people who read these papers and watch the BBC know the truth of the Middleton's families wealth - should wikipaedia readers know about it too OR should we let them just think of Kate as a commoner who just "somehow" had parents with ALOT of MONEY!! What do you think? This piece of history - see below- also seems to clarify the Luptons as being more socially important than most people think. The Luptons certainly had a HUGE property - the BBC were right as is the royal correspondant Gordon Raynor and they were socializing with royalty throughout the 1920's at least! Please, Please read these articles below-
http://www.leodis.net/display.aspx?resourceIdentifier=20041110_49352664
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/10135251/How-the-family-of-commoner-Kate-Middleton-has-been-rubbing-shoulders-with-royalty-for-a-century.html cheers Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 ( talk) 08:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen, I certainly wasn't insinuating that you have any ulterior motives. That has never been my imntention. I am sorry that I am unable to do the correct computer thing regarding the editing process. I just was wondering if this article page should be more in line with the Telegraph's research. Should we make areference to aristocarcy? What do you think? Should we at least add that the Luptons were big landowners too? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 ( talk) 09:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking of making the sentence as such: "In 1913, after briefly studying landscape architecture at Harvard University, he and his wife moved to Asia Minor as a result of his decision to join the licorice business which his father had already established."
That way his studies won't go unnoticed and a date as to when he start and ended his studies at Harvard wouldn't necessarily be mentioned. What you think? Proudbolsahye ( talk) 18:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 24 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jamestown, Western Cape, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the streets in Jamestown, in the Western Cape province of South Africa, are named after varieties of the main agricultural crop grown there since 1902? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jamestown, Western Cape. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 20:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
With the Lupton family. You might also want to keep an eye on Lord Mayor of Leeds. (Aside: there was an early female one, with a female companion.) I am trying to assume good faith with anon Mike, but he is pushing my patience. Your help is appreciated. Isn't Frances Lupton a find? All those Leeds men, and she gets herself into the ODNB! BrainyBabe ( talk) 12:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Also - might you consider commenting on my Did You Know nomination for Frances? The noms above and below her have been dealt with by other volunteers, but she is overlooked. BrainyBabe ( talk) 12:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Alas I think we may have both the time and location of the Royal birth way out of line. Acccording to the Sun's "Nappy and Glorious" coverage, the birth of George was at 5 to 1, at Ladbrook's! Let's hope those Royal medics didn't lose him in the piles of used betting slips. I certainly wasn't induced to lay any wager, despite my prediction of a future Sun King. Regards. Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I hope you know there was nothing personal in the debate at
T:EoW. I'm often not very concise in text communication and can come off ranty as a result. I've actually, quietly noticed many of your contributions around Wikipedia. —
Sowlos
09:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC) has extended an
olive branch of peace.
Thanks Sowlos, I appreciate the gesture. Helen Online 18:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I just checked the URL it appears to be live, so I reverted. However, if it turns out that the host website is just spotty, then the archive link could be restored but set to not override the real link. — Sowlos 15:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I see there's a lot of backbiting at the articles relating to the recent discoveries. I'm making the assumption that you're not directly involved, but several of the editors obviously are. I wondered if I ought to put some temporary protection on Exhumation of Richard III of England to discourage edit warring. Deb ( talk) 11:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Nelson Mandela shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
![]() | On 6 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward Hulton (senior), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a vast British newspaper empire grew from a horse racing tip sheet published in Victorian Manchester by the enterprising son of a weaver? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Hulton (senior). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen,
As I mentioned at the end of July I am putting together a Treasure hunt for Wiki Loves Monuments in Stellenbosch. I have booked a table for us all to meet at the Dorp Street Deli at 56 Dorpstreet for 10am on Saturday the 14th September. We can move out at 11am and be done by around 2pm. I would like to end the event at a nearby location with Internet access so that we can do an upload marathon the same day. I think the best location will be the Stellenbosch library on Plein Street.
A list of heritage sites in Stellenbosch can be found at List_of_heritage_sites_in_Stellenbosch. I would love to see us take as many pictures of these locations on the list as we can.
I would like to know if you could help me make this event happen by inviting people to join us in taking pictures of monuments from around the historical centre of Stellenboch and upload them onto the commons?
Please let me know if you are still interested in joining us. It would be great to have you join us!
Thanks
Douglas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discott ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 September 2013
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For Satanic Panic (South Africa) - a brilliant article :). Ironholds ( talk) 18:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you :) Helen Online 20:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Helen Zille (it can't be you?)
Nonetheless, any from of discourse is paramount to progress society without any prejudice.
Clearly, you understand my view, and your view I apprehend to an extent. As the content I'm disputing is disputable and thus open for scrutiny from all relevant stakeholders.
I'm an Afrikaner. So to be clear, this stand your taking, reflects the stand of those who are in power. I implore that throughout this discourse that preconceived ideas, or old taboos are taken out of context. History is written by those who are in power. There's my version of the truth, then there's your version of the truth, and then there is the truth.
So then, my question what is the truth? Is the Afrikaner indigenous, or thus intruders? Are they European or African? Where do we draw the line? What defines your Africanism? How may races are there, one, or are we as a nation group representative of one race each? Are we not all indigenous? All of these question are relevant to this identity discourse. The ancestry of an new ethnicity, does they define them? Is those of European origin the only colonisers in South Africa? etcetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland Postma ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The article Civil recognition of Jewish divorce has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
212.50.182.151 (
talk)
04:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen, RE - Ancestry of Catherne, Duchess of Cambridge. You might like to know that in Volume X, page 34, copyright 1945, S11568, The Complete Peerage of England..." by G.E. Cokayne, it is clear that there was issue from the Plantaganet- Lumley marriage
http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p1924.htm
You may also be interested in a published book (by Pen and Sword Books) It was published in Feb. 2013 - called "Tracing Your Aristocratic Ancestors". It is written by royal geneaologist Anthony Adolph (please see his web site). Chapter 6 is called "Heraldry" and it deals with the indisputable descent of the duchess of Cambridge from Edward IV.
Good Luck! Cheers Mike (Ted) Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.90.209 ( talk) 10:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Helen, You might like to refer to Cracroft's page - he, along with many geneaologists - is in absolutley no doubt that their was issue from the Lumley - Plantagenent marriage - (which includes descendants such as the Queen Mother).
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/catherinemiddleton.htm
This is, as I am sure you know, a ludicrous situation. So many geneaologists have published this Edward IV ancestry of Kate Middleton's: C.Hall, A.Adolph, Cracroft and of course, Burke's Perrage and Cokayne. Here is the original (longer) version which he had on his website, (albeit briefly)-
"The Complete Peerage article on the Lords Lumley (Vol VIII p.274) does not say that there were no children from this marriage (patently not, as Richard, 4th Lord Lumley, was the son of Sir Thomas Lumley and Elizabeth Plantagenet) but that there was no evidence of the marriage. Given that the marriage was in the late 15th century this is not unusual. In the Addenda & Corrigenda to the Complete Peerage (p.457) Peter Hammond gives two sources for the evidence for this marriage. His last sentence reads: “The assertion that there were any issue is certainly not true”. Given Peter’s earlier comments, this is obviously a typo and it should read: “The assertion that there was no issue is certainly not true.”
Hope this helps. Use his specific facts (page numbers etc) in the article if necessary. You seem a very capable editor - moreso than me!! Michael E. Reed
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.
I think there was some confusion as to the edits I made on list of haplogroups of notable people, particularly the King Tut section. I couldn't fit it all in the edit summary so I've brought the discussion here. Your first edit was in regards to this sentence "After pressure to publish Tutankhamun's full DNA report to confirm his Y-DNA results, the researchers refused to respond." It is known that they purposely left out his Y-DNA results in the final report despite testing his Y-DNA (His Y-DNA results were publicly broadcasted when they were trying to determine if Akhenaten was his father). After the leak the researchers responded by calling it "unscientific" but did not deny the results were accurate (Since it was publicly broadcasted so they couldn't deny it) and also refused to further comment when they were asked to officially report his Y-DNA results.
You made a rv in your second edit, I removed that part because I didn't feel it was relevant to the article.
In your third edit you reverted this additional information I added "In December 2012 according to a genetic study conducted by the same researchers who decoded King Tutankhamun's DNA, found that." I thought this part was relevant because it showed that these particular researchers were willing to publish the Y-DNA results of the mummies, but possibly tried to censor King Tuts DNA results due to him having European ancestry.
In the fourth edit you removed the origin of R1b1a2 (R-M269) and E1b1a for an unknown reason. Let me know how we can settle this, thanks Anarchistdy ( talk) 09:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
"All my edits are clearly explained in my edit summaries (I broke it down carefully so there could be no confusion)" You attempted to explain them but I don't think they were justified.
I disagree that it falls into the contentforking category because it does conform to the Manual of Style for list and the first paragraph states. "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."
I read the deletion discussion and the overwhelming opinion was to keep the article, with suggestings to clean it up and remove some of the less notable people. My edit to the King Tut section was to make it more neutral because the entire section was trying to discredit those particular results just because the original researchers didn't publish the YDNA in the final report. As I said before his DNA testing was publicly broadcasted, and the camera showed a close up of the results which were R1b1a2 (R-M269) to 99.9% certainty (For comparison most of the results on this list claiming a certain YDNA are probably only around 80% certainty). The the only way the researchers could deny these results was if contamination occurred, which it clearly didn't since the same sample proved that Akhenaten was his father. Anarchistdy ( talk) 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Helen, Well done on your work on the Edward IV ancestry "issue" of Kate Middleton. I wonder if the information will ever be placed back in her own article? What do you think?
There were at least 2 films found in July 2013, by British Pathe which featured Kate's ancestors. The first was from 1915 and her great great grandfather Francis Martineau Lupton appears in it. Francis is part of the Mayoral entourage following his brother, Sir Charles, who is inspecting the "Leeds Pals Battalian" at a camp near Colsterdale, in the Yorkshire Dales. His brothers Arthur and Hugh are also in the entourage.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/09/kate-middleton-ancestors-caught-on-film_n_3567707.html
http://britishpathe.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/the-duchess-of-cambridges-ancestors-discovered-on-film/
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-07-09/archive-footage-shows-kates-great-great-great-relatives/
The second Pathe film is from 1927 and shows Kate's great great grandfather's brother Hugh, Lord Mayor of Leeds, and his wife Isabella, the Lady Mayoress, greeting Princess Mary in Hunslet, Leeds. Princess Mary is the current Queen's aunt.
These films were shown in the UK on the BBC Look North TV programme on the day,6.30pm, of Prince George's birth!
I do hope this helps clear things up and well done again. Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 ( talk) 09:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen,
Good to hear from you and thanks.
It is my understanding that the 4 films were of interest to the UK media because they all relate to each other - over a period of 50 years. They all show that the four Lupton men (as well as Lady Mayoress Isabella Lupton) and also Kate's grandfather, all knew Royalty well - obviously not just in "Lord Mayoral" official capacities.
Pathe Film 1 - Kate's great great grandfather Francis is seen with his brother Sir Charles and his two other brothers, in the 1915 film. Sir Charles was Deputy Lieutenant of the West Riding of York to Princess Mary's father-in-law, Earl Harewood, who was his Lord Lieutenant. Princess Mary's (future) husband, Lord Harewood, is also apparently in the entourage but I have searched the records from Pathe and I cannot see where this idea originated from - but I agree that it is most probable. His wikipaedia entry certainly lists him as a soldier.
Pathe Film 2 - Kate's great great great uncle Hugh and his wife Isabella, are greeting and then waving "good bye" to Princess Mary, the Princess Royal in Hunslet, Leeds, in the 1927 Pathe film. This also interested the BBC as Princess Mary is Prince William's great great aunt. A magazine called "Majesty" did an article on all of this fairly new information recently. Footage and stills were also found of Sir Charles' brother-in-law, Viscount Bryce (British Ambassador to the USA) in the Library of Congress. A photo of Viscount Bryce, alongside Prince Arthur, was also in "Majesty" - a UK publication which sells world wide. I think it was also mentioned in a Daily Telegraph article too.
Pathe Film 3 - Kate's great great great aunt is seen at a huge Leeds Rememberance event - with the Great Mace of Leeds being carried before her, as Lady Mayoress, this being a "sign of Royal Authority". http://www.britishpathe.com/video/armistice-day-thousands-attend-deeply-impressive-3
Pathe Film 4 - The UK public would have been interested to see the Pathe film which shows Co-pilot Peter Middleton together with the Duke of Edinburgh in the 1962 "Tour of South America". Peter Middleton is the grandfather of Kate Middleton. The Duke is Prince William's grandfather. http://www.britishpathe.com/video/selected-originals-dukes-successful-tour-3/query/shanty
Fascinating on television to watch!
I do hope this helps. All the Best M.E.Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 ( talk) 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia as a writer. I stumbled onto your User Page, and is busy using it (along with a few others) to create my own. Thank you for being an inspiration to me in this regard.
How long did you take to get your User Page to where it is now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie2012a ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
How do I make a link so people can message me as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie2012a ( talk • contribs) 11:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Erzurum shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yozer1 ( talk) 16:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I have asked you to read WP:BRD. I will break it down for you anyway:
The talk page discussion could have been opened sooner (not that you were interested in discussing it given your deletion of the talk page discussion four times in violation of WP:TPOC). Ideally it should have been opened by you in line with WP:BRD. I have in no way prevented you from adding a source or discussing it further on the talk page. A lot of discussion has already gone into that section of the article, so it would be wise to discuss any changes on the talk page first anyway. Helen Online 08:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
I suggest you both re-read WP:BRD and WP:BLP. -- Leptiminus ( talk) 02:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Your sources - Postmedia (Ottawa Citizen) are unfortunately not reliable. If you want to go that route, you will have to use the Departmental Website and look at expenses for Ian Wilson, Ingrid Parent and do comparison. The reports you are using are not built on any reliable sources- they do not pretend to either. These newspaper articles have been vindictive and in support of an advocacy movement recognized by Myron Grover lately on his blogpost- please check. They do not reflect the reality. The only reliable source for what you try to advance is the Privy Council Office and it has to do with personal information - retirement. No letter, no post allow you to verify if he resigned. The further you could go with this is that he left the Public service. And interestingly enough he left before Postmedia reported on expenses that, by the way, if you do not know the canadian system, are posted every quarter on the website of the institutions. This shows the vindictive and harassment Caron was a victim of by media and professional communities. It doesn't tell the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frelau ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I read your modifications to the LAC page as well as those made to Caron's bio. it sounds more like advocacy than being serious about reporting a balanced view. It sounds like you have a conflict of interest working on behalf of someone here. you seem to be referring in the text to what is supporting some kind of a "thesis". I will continue with your previous "warning" on truth and verifiability: The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight. And: Please note that editing a Wikipedia article is strongly discouraged if you have a conflict of interest. So, please bring a balance view to the LAC's page and get Caron's bio as a bio as per define in Wikipedia guidelines.-- Frelau ( talk) 23:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC) in other words, the bios need to be bios and controversies need to be where they belong: with the institution. However, several comments where made vis a vis the fact that it was complaisant to Wilson and Caron and not reflecting the opposition from inside. True. you need a balanced view: LAC - as an institution- corporations of archivists and librarians, unions, and obviously the direction of this government.-- Frelau ( talk) 01:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
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.
Dear Helen,
Thank you for the work you've done on the Nelson Mandela page (the late, great, and honorable Nelson Mandela). I see that editing restrictions are currently in place so I'm writing you as the last contributor. As a modest suggestion, I wonder if you might agree that a link to the "List of South African newspapers" page could be appropriate. Even better, links to their respective Letters to the Editor. In that way, I believe the outpouring of support that can be expected might in some small way be enhanced. If you agree with me. I am very willing to track down those links for your review.
Sincerely,
Jim VanOpdorp — Preceding unsigned comment added by JZVan ( talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I just noticed this. COIN can be extremely slow, as there aren't many editors patrolling it these days. Two thoughts. First, the accused COI editor hasn't editing since Nov 25, so perhaps you're in the clear for the time being. Second, if you want to get this guy you should start an WP:SPI. It seems clear to me he used Lepti... as a sock in order to attack you; if the SPI comes up positive then both accounts will probably be blocked indefinitely. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 09:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Turkmens have the worlds highest frequency of Q1a1-F1215 (Q1a2 a different clade is found in Americans and Siberians) [3] [4]. Turkmenistan may be the only nation outside of the continental Americas with more then 10% Q, and one of only a few remaining in the world. Q1a1 is at least 17 kya as it is found in an upper Paleolithic Afontova remain in siberia [5]. Old studies mislabeled Q1a1-m25 with R1b1. This is due to the fact that both Q1a1b, the only clade of Q in Turkmens is defined by P25 which also is a defining mutation of R1b1 [6] [7] . It is likely that most of what was labeled R1b in central asia- and Siberia is really Q1a1b, including Uyghurs, and the Bashkirs, R1b has been verified as being common in some of the Bashkirs but it likely that they are the eastern-most population with a high frequency of the haplogroup .. 209.236.86.201 ( talk) 00:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
To: HelenOnline
Sorry! I honestly did not know that sa gov text was not copyrighted. Apologies for my slip-up.
Thank you
Nelson Mandela was not Batman ( talk) 07:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
The article is entitled List of dignitaries at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela, not List of pictures of Barack Obama at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela. My reversion is valid. NorthernThunder ( talk) 20:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 18 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article National Forensic DNA Database of South Africa, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, as in Brazil, families of crime victims in South Africa have successfully campaigned for the establishment of a national forensic DNA database? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/National Forensic DNA Database of South Africa. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
Please explain to me why it is incorrect to list Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge as "Princess William" and why it is acceptable to list Sophie, Countess of Wessex as "The Princess Edward" or Katherine, Duchess of Kent as "Princess Edward" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claytnb ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Did you notice that the family history article has a proposal to merge it into genealogy? I am not sure I would link to the first? Hmmm -- RebekahThorn ( talk) 11:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment one way or another. Bearian ( talk) 20:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I notice your editing and I know you might be interested in this subject. A new user who has been doing some fairly controversial edits has made an ISOGG article in a fairly awkward way. It will probably be deleted if it is not improved. This could then make any eventual new creation of the article a bit more difficult.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Guidelines desperately needed. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 11:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
|
In recognition of your work on the article about the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, I would like you to imagine enjoying the taste of my grandmother's masterpiece dessert. An imaginary glass of pomegranate juice would go perfectly with it! Surtsicna ( talk) 13:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
Glass of wine |
May you find many more ancestors! Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC) |
Dear Helen, please correct me if I am wrong, but from your recent "thank you" for a comment over at the Modern Paganism talk page, I am given to the impression that you are yourself interested in the subject ? If so, I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look over at a page I created, Etymology of Wicca, which I am currently putting through a peer review; unfortunately, due to the highly specialist nature of the article, no one seems to be commenting just yet. Of course there is no obligation to do so, but if you do have any comments, that would be great, as I am hoping to push this article up to FAC soon! Best, Midnightblueowl ( talk) 11:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi HelenOnline, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert any other type of edit - such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with - can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, use a manual edit summary instead of using the rollback tool. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 07:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen, Please see my subject headline. I really think some broadsheet jounalists have brillianty encapsulated the social status of the Middleton family/ backround and should thus be accurately quoted. What do you think? Thanks again for your interest in this matter. Cheers, Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 ( talk) 09:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Done I have
added it properly but cannot guarantee it will stay as is.
Helen
Online
09:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen Thanks so much for your work on the Family of Kate Middleton page. A student suggested a LINK on the "Blue-blooded word" - probably "gentry" but we are Victorians so, if you are English, you may know which word is best suited.
Also - if you talk to someone that "runs" the Kate Middleton page - do you think you could gat a similar line put in? We have had conferences here (Jounalist's) which highlight the MANY recent articles in the last few months which expose excellent research into her father's "smattering of blue-blooded ancestors".
Maybe, as these folk are all Luptons (apart from Viscount Bryce - a brother-in-law of Sir Charles Lupton)- this refernce could be juxtaposed alongside the Lupton reference on Kate's page. This would give a MUCH clearer view of Kate's background ie the Luptons, we know now, were not simply an "active business family"! Cheers and thanks so much Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 ( talk) 10:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen You are so quick to respond. Thanks!
We noticed that there is a very interesting reference to the discovery of British Pathe film which has Kate's ancestors- great great grandfather and his brothers- in it alongsoide William's ancestors ie - royalty.
Would this information - which we gather has been in many newspaprs and in "on-line" articles - be of interest to wikipaedia readers who are intersted in Kate?
What do you think? Cheers Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 ( talk) 10:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Helen, You might like to reference this above article too - shouldn't it be a reference for the bit that talks about the "Luptons hosting royalty". We are sure that that is where this information came from.
PS do you not think it a good idea to put the British Pathe information under the Kate middleton ancestry section on her OWN page? Cheers again Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 ( talk) 11:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen, Thankyou for being so helpful. I am not a computer whiz. Hoping you can help -
I have read in a number of articles that Kate's great grandmother was from a "landed gentry" family. Infact page 3 of the UK Telegraph and also the Daily Mail had pictures of BEECHWOOD estate grade 2 listed etc etc . These shots of the estate - in the Lupton family until 1998 - had not been seen by the public. Much of the estate's farmland was sold off in the 1950's creating vast wealth for Francis' descendants. By 2000, the Georgian mansion itself was sold - more money for Francis' descendants.
The word "aristocratic" was used to describe Olive in the BBC tv show screened befor Kate and William married. It seems that "clever" people who read these papers and watch the BBC know the truth of the Middleton's families wealth - should wikipaedia readers know about it too OR should we let them just think of Kate as a commoner who just "somehow" had parents with ALOT of MONEY!! What do you think? This piece of history - see below- also seems to clarify the Luptons as being more socially important than most people think. The Luptons certainly had a HUGE property - the BBC were right as is the royal correspondant Gordon Raynor and they were socializing with royalty throughout the 1920's at least! Please, Please read these articles below-
http://www.leodis.net/display.aspx?resourceIdentifier=20041110_49352664
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/10135251/How-the-family-of-commoner-Kate-Middleton-has-been-rubbing-shoulders-with-royalty-for-a-century.html cheers Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 ( talk) 08:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen, I certainly wasn't insinuating that you have any ulterior motives. That has never been my imntention. I am sorry that I am unable to do the correct computer thing regarding the editing process. I just was wondering if this article page should be more in line with the Telegraph's research. Should we make areference to aristocarcy? What do you think? Should we at least add that the Luptons were big landowners too? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 ( talk) 09:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking of making the sentence as such: "In 1913, after briefly studying landscape architecture at Harvard University, he and his wife moved to Asia Minor as a result of his decision to join the licorice business which his father had already established."
That way his studies won't go unnoticed and a date as to when he start and ended his studies at Harvard wouldn't necessarily be mentioned. What you think? Proudbolsahye ( talk) 18:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 24 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jamestown, Western Cape, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the streets in Jamestown, in the Western Cape province of South Africa, are named after varieties of the main agricultural crop grown there since 1902? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jamestown, Western Cape. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 20:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
With the Lupton family. You might also want to keep an eye on Lord Mayor of Leeds. (Aside: there was an early female one, with a female companion.) I am trying to assume good faith with anon Mike, but he is pushing my patience. Your help is appreciated. Isn't Frances Lupton a find? All those Leeds men, and she gets herself into the ODNB! BrainyBabe ( talk) 12:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Also - might you consider commenting on my Did You Know nomination for Frances? The noms above and below her have been dealt with by other volunteers, but she is overlooked. BrainyBabe ( talk) 12:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Alas I think we may have both the time and location of the Royal birth way out of line. Acccording to the Sun's "Nappy and Glorious" coverage, the birth of George was at 5 to 1, at Ladbrook's! Let's hope those Royal medics didn't lose him in the piles of used betting slips. I certainly wasn't induced to lay any wager, despite my prediction of a future Sun King. Regards. Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I hope you know there was nothing personal in the debate at
T:EoW. I'm often not very concise in text communication and can come off ranty as a result. I've actually, quietly noticed many of your contributions around Wikipedia. —
Sowlos
09:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC) has extended an
olive branch of peace.
Thanks Sowlos, I appreciate the gesture. Helen Online 18:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I just checked the URL it appears to be live, so I reverted. However, if it turns out that the host website is just spotty, then the archive link could be restored but set to not override the real link. — Sowlos 15:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I see there's a lot of backbiting at the articles relating to the recent discoveries. I'm making the assumption that you're not directly involved, but several of the editors obviously are. I wondered if I ought to put some temporary protection on Exhumation of Richard III of England to discourage edit warring. Deb ( talk) 11:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Nelson Mandela shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
![]() | On 6 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward Hulton (senior), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a vast British newspaper empire grew from a horse racing tip sheet published in Victorian Manchester by the enterprising son of a weaver? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Hulton (senior). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen,
As I mentioned at the end of July I am putting together a Treasure hunt for Wiki Loves Monuments in Stellenbosch. I have booked a table for us all to meet at the Dorp Street Deli at 56 Dorpstreet for 10am on Saturday the 14th September. We can move out at 11am and be done by around 2pm. I would like to end the event at a nearby location with Internet access so that we can do an upload marathon the same day. I think the best location will be the Stellenbosch library on Plein Street.
A list of heritage sites in Stellenbosch can be found at List_of_heritage_sites_in_Stellenbosch. I would love to see us take as many pictures of these locations on the list as we can.
I would like to know if you could help me make this event happen by inviting people to join us in taking pictures of monuments from around the historical centre of Stellenboch and upload them onto the commons?
Please let me know if you are still interested in joining us. It would be great to have you join us!
Thanks
Douglas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discott ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 September 2013
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For Satanic Panic (South Africa) - a brilliant article :). Ironholds ( talk) 18:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you :) Helen Online 20:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Helen Zille (it can't be you?)
Nonetheless, any from of discourse is paramount to progress society without any prejudice.
Clearly, you understand my view, and your view I apprehend to an extent. As the content I'm disputing is disputable and thus open for scrutiny from all relevant stakeholders.
I'm an Afrikaner. So to be clear, this stand your taking, reflects the stand of those who are in power. I implore that throughout this discourse that preconceived ideas, or old taboos are taken out of context. History is written by those who are in power. There's my version of the truth, then there's your version of the truth, and then there is the truth.
So then, my question what is the truth? Is the Afrikaner indigenous, or thus intruders? Are they European or African? Where do we draw the line? What defines your Africanism? How may races are there, one, or are we as a nation group representative of one race each? Are we not all indigenous? All of these question are relevant to this identity discourse. The ancestry of an new ethnicity, does they define them? Is those of European origin the only colonisers in South Africa? etcetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland Postma ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The article Civil recognition of Jewish divorce has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
212.50.182.151 (
talk)
04:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen, RE - Ancestry of Catherne, Duchess of Cambridge. You might like to know that in Volume X, page 34, copyright 1945, S11568, The Complete Peerage of England..." by G.E. Cokayne, it is clear that there was issue from the Plantaganet- Lumley marriage
http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p1924.htm
You may also be interested in a published book (by Pen and Sword Books) It was published in Feb. 2013 - called "Tracing Your Aristocratic Ancestors". It is written by royal geneaologist Anthony Adolph (please see his web site). Chapter 6 is called "Heraldry" and it deals with the indisputable descent of the duchess of Cambridge from Edward IV.
Good Luck! Cheers Mike (Ted) Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.90.209 ( talk) 10:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Helen, You might like to refer to Cracroft's page - he, along with many geneaologists - is in absolutley no doubt that their was issue from the Lumley - Plantagenent marriage - (which includes descendants such as the Queen Mother).
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/catherinemiddleton.htm
This is, as I am sure you know, a ludicrous situation. So many geneaologists have published this Edward IV ancestry of Kate Middleton's: C.Hall, A.Adolph, Cracroft and of course, Burke's Perrage and Cokayne. Here is the original (longer) version which he had on his website, (albeit briefly)-
"The Complete Peerage article on the Lords Lumley (Vol VIII p.274) does not say that there were no children from this marriage (patently not, as Richard, 4th Lord Lumley, was the son of Sir Thomas Lumley and Elizabeth Plantagenet) but that there was no evidence of the marriage. Given that the marriage was in the late 15th century this is not unusual. In the Addenda & Corrigenda to the Complete Peerage (p.457) Peter Hammond gives two sources for the evidence for this marriage. His last sentence reads: “The assertion that there were any issue is certainly not true”. Given Peter’s earlier comments, this is obviously a typo and it should read: “The assertion that there was no issue is certainly not true.”
Hope this helps. Use his specific facts (page numbers etc) in the article if necessary. You seem a very capable editor - moreso than me!! Michael E. Reed
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.
I think there was some confusion as to the edits I made on list of haplogroups of notable people, particularly the King Tut section. I couldn't fit it all in the edit summary so I've brought the discussion here. Your first edit was in regards to this sentence "After pressure to publish Tutankhamun's full DNA report to confirm his Y-DNA results, the researchers refused to respond." It is known that they purposely left out his Y-DNA results in the final report despite testing his Y-DNA (His Y-DNA results were publicly broadcasted when they were trying to determine if Akhenaten was his father). After the leak the researchers responded by calling it "unscientific" but did not deny the results were accurate (Since it was publicly broadcasted so they couldn't deny it) and also refused to further comment when they were asked to officially report his Y-DNA results.
You made a rv in your second edit, I removed that part because I didn't feel it was relevant to the article.
In your third edit you reverted this additional information I added "In December 2012 according to a genetic study conducted by the same researchers who decoded King Tutankhamun's DNA, found that." I thought this part was relevant because it showed that these particular researchers were willing to publish the Y-DNA results of the mummies, but possibly tried to censor King Tuts DNA results due to him having European ancestry.
In the fourth edit you removed the origin of R1b1a2 (R-M269) and E1b1a for an unknown reason. Let me know how we can settle this, thanks Anarchistdy ( talk) 09:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
"All my edits are clearly explained in my edit summaries (I broke it down carefully so there could be no confusion)" You attempted to explain them but I don't think they were justified.
I disagree that it falls into the contentforking category because it does conform to the Manual of Style for list and the first paragraph states. "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."
I read the deletion discussion and the overwhelming opinion was to keep the article, with suggestings to clean it up and remove some of the less notable people. My edit to the King Tut section was to make it more neutral because the entire section was trying to discredit those particular results just because the original researchers didn't publish the YDNA in the final report. As I said before his DNA testing was publicly broadcasted, and the camera showed a close up of the results which were R1b1a2 (R-M269) to 99.9% certainty (For comparison most of the results on this list claiming a certain YDNA are probably only around 80% certainty). The the only way the researchers could deny these results was if contamination occurred, which it clearly didn't since the same sample proved that Akhenaten was his father. Anarchistdy ( talk) 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Helen, Well done on your work on the Edward IV ancestry "issue" of Kate Middleton. I wonder if the information will ever be placed back in her own article? What do you think?
There were at least 2 films found in July 2013, by British Pathe which featured Kate's ancestors. The first was from 1915 and her great great grandfather Francis Martineau Lupton appears in it. Francis is part of the Mayoral entourage following his brother, Sir Charles, who is inspecting the "Leeds Pals Battalian" at a camp near Colsterdale, in the Yorkshire Dales. His brothers Arthur and Hugh are also in the entourage.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/09/kate-middleton-ancestors-caught-on-film_n_3567707.html
http://britishpathe.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/the-duchess-of-cambridges-ancestors-discovered-on-film/
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-07-09/archive-footage-shows-kates-great-great-great-relatives/
The second Pathe film is from 1927 and shows Kate's great great grandfather's brother Hugh, Lord Mayor of Leeds, and his wife Isabella, the Lady Mayoress, greeting Princess Mary in Hunslet, Leeds. Princess Mary is the current Queen's aunt.
These films were shown in the UK on the BBC Look North TV programme on the day,6.30pm, of Prince George's birth!
I do hope this helps clear things up and well done again. Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 ( talk) 09:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Helen,
Good to hear from you and thanks.
It is my understanding that the 4 films were of interest to the UK media because they all relate to each other - over a period of 50 years. They all show that the four Lupton men (as well as Lady Mayoress Isabella Lupton) and also Kate's grandfather, all knew Royalty well - obviously not just in "Lord Mayoral" official capacities.
Pathe Film 1 - Kate's great great grandfather Francis is seen with his brother Sir Charles and his two other brothers, in the 1915 film. Sir Charles was Deputy Lieutenant of the West Riding of York to Princess Mary's father-in-law, Earl Harewood, who was his Lord Lieutenant. Princess Mary's (future) husband, Lord Harewood, is also apparently in the entourage but I have searched the records from Pathe and I cannot see where this idea originated from - but I agree that it is most probable. His wikipaedia entry certainly lists him as a soldier.
Pathe Film 2 - Kate's great great great uncle Hugh and his wife Isabella, are greeting and then waving "good bye" to Princess Mary, the Princess Royal in Hunslet, Leeds, in the 1927 Pathe film. This also interested the BBC as Princess Mary is Prince William's great great aunt. A magazine called "Majesty" did an article on all of this fairly new information recently. Footage and stills were also found of Sir Charles' brother-in-law, Viscount Bryce (British Ambassador to the USA) in the Library of Congress. A photo of Viscount Bryce, alongside Prince Arthur, was also in "Majesty" - a UK publication which sells world wide. I think it was also mentioned in a Daily Telegraph article too.
Pathe Film 3 - Kate's great great great aunt is seen at a huge Leeds Rememberance event - with the Great Mace of Leeds being carried before her, as Lady Mayoress, this being a "sign of Royal Authority". http://www.britishpathe.com/video/armistice-day-thousands-attend-deeply-impressive-3
Pathe Film 4 - The UK public would have been interested to see the Pathe film which shows Co-pilot Peter Middleton together with the Duke of Edinburgh in the 1962 "Tour of South America". Peter Middleton is the grandfather of Kate Middleton. The Duke is Prince William's grandfather. http://www.britishpathe.com/video/selected-originals-dukes-successful-tour-3/query/shanty
Fascinating on television to watch!
I do hope this helps. All the Best M.E.Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 ( talk) 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia as a writer. I stumbled onto your User Page, and is busy using it (along with a few others) to create my own. Thank you for being an inspiration to me in this regard.
How long did you take to get your User Page to where it is now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie2012a ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
How do I make a link so people can message me as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie2012a ( talk • contribs) 11:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Erzurum shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yozer1 ( talk) 16:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I have asked you to read WP:BRD. I will break it down for you anyway:
The talk page discussion could have been opened sooner (not that you were interested in discussing it given your deletion of the talk page discussion four times in violation of WP:TPOC). Ideally it should have been opened by you in line with WP:BRD. I have in no way prevented you from adding a source or discussing it further on the talk page. A lot of discussion has already gone into that section of the article, so it would be wise to discuss any changes on the talk page first anyway. Helen Online 08:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
I suggest you both re-read WP:BRD and WP:BLP. -- Leptiminus ( talk) 02:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Your sources - Postmedia (Ottawa Citizen) are unfortunately not reliable. If you want to go that route, you will have to use the Departmental Website and look at expenses for Ian Wilson, Ingrid Parent and do comparison. The reports you are using are not built on any reliable sources- they do not pretend to either. These newspaper articles have been vindictive and in support of an advocacy movement recognized by Myron Grover lately on his blogpost- please check. They do not reflect the reality. The only reliable source for what you try to advance is the Privy Council Office and it has to do with personal information - retirement. No letter, no post allow you to verify if he resigned. The further you could go with this is that he left the Public service. And interestingly enough he left before Postmedia reported on expenses that, by the way, if you do not know the canadian system, are posted every quarter on the website of the institutions. This shows the vindictive and harassment Caron was a victim of by media and professional communities. It doesn't tell the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frelau ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I read your modifications to the LAC page as well as those made to Caron's bio. it sounds more like advocacy than being serious about reporting a balanced view. It sounds like you have a conflict of interest working on behalf of someone here. you seem to be referring in the text to what is supporting some kind of a "thesis". I will continue with your previous "warning" on truth and verifiability: The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight. And: Please note that editing a Wikipedia article is strongly discouraged if you have a conflict of interest. So, please bring a balance view to the LAC's page and get Caron's bio as a bio as per define in Wikipedia guidelines.-- Frelau ( talk) 23:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC) in other words, the bios need to be bios and controversies need to be where they belong: with the institution. However, several comments where made vis a vis the fact that it was complaisant to Wilson and Caron and not reflecting the opposition from inside. True. you need a balanced view: LAC - as an institution- corporations of archivists and librarians, unions, and obviously the direction of this government.-- Frelau ( talk) 01:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
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.
Dear Helen,
Thank you for the work you've done on the Nelson Mandela page (the late, great, and honorable Nelson Mandela). I see that editing restrictions are currently in place so I'm writing you as the last contributor. As a modest suggestion, I wonder if you might agree that a link to the "List of South African newspapers" page could be appropriate. Even better, links to their respective Letters to the Editor. In that way, I believe the outpouring of support that can be expected might in some small way be enhanced. If you agree with me. I am very willing to track down those links for your review.
Sincerely,
Jim VanOpdorp — Preceding unsigned comment added by JZVan ( talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I just noticed this. COIN can be extremely slow, as there aren't many editors patrolling it these days. Two thoughts. First, the accused COI editor hasn't editing since Nov 25, so perhaps you're in the clear for the time being. Second, if you want to get this guy you should start an WP:SPI. It seems clear to me he used Lepti... as a sock in order to attack you; if the SPI comes up positive then both accounts will probably be blocked indefinitely. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 09:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Turkmens have the worlds highest frequency of Q1a1-F1215 (Q1a2 a different clade is found in Americans and Siberians) [3] [4]. Turkmenistan may be the only nation outside of the continental Americas with more then 10% Q, and one of only a few remaining in the world. Q1a1 is at least 17 kya as it is found in an upper Paleolithic Afontova remain in siberia [5]. Old studies mislabeled Q1a1-m25 with R1b1. This is due to the fact that both Q1a1b, the only clade of Q in Turkmens is defined by P25 which also is a defining mutation of R1b1 [6] [7] . It is likely that most of what was labeled R1b in central asia- and Siberia is really Q1a1b, including Uyghurs, and the Bashkirs, R1b has been verified as being common in some of the Bashkirs but it likely that they are the eastern-most population with a high frequency of the haplogroup .. 209.236.86.201 ( talk) 00:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
To: HelenOnline
Sorry! I honestly did not know that sa gov text was not copyrighted. Apologies for my slip-up.
Thank you
Nelson Mandela was not Batman ( talk) 07:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
The article is entitled List of dignitaries at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela, not List of pictures of Barack Obama at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela. My reversion is valid. NorthernThunder ( talk) 20:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 18 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article National Forensic DNA Database of South Africa, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, as in Brazil, families of crime victims in South Africa have successfully campaigned for the establishment of a national forensic DNA database? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/National Forensic DNA Database of South Africa. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
Please explain to me why it is incorrect to list Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge as "Princess William" and why it is acceptable to list Sophie, Countess of Wessex as "The Princess Edward" or Katherine, Duchess of Kent as "Princess Edward" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claytnb ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)