Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:09, 19 November 2010

If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|FactStraight}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Zita of Bourbon-Parma

You are doing nothing to improve the article by constantly reverting. Contemporary NYT articles show that she was also known as Zita of Parma and subsequently Zita di Borbone, Principessa di Parma. I have requested you point out what states that that name simply does not exist and you haven't done so, simply instead you regurgitate the same summary over and over. It seems you otherwise have no interest whatsoever in the article and that is why you are not offering further explanation. Charles 20:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta

hr:Tomislav II. as opposed to italian wikipedia also please see the discussion points that I have made. In brief - there was a Law decree on the Crown of king Zvonimir to which crown the right of rule has been transffered (like in the case of Crown of St. Stephen of Hungary). Also no ratification were predicted under the terms of that Law. Peter II of Yugoslavia has not been confirmed by the Croatian Parliament nor had any of his predecessors been confirmed. There is more facts to consider than just Italian Misplaced Pages. In Italy you have had 46 governments in 43 years (or simmilar statistics), you have right parties, autonomists, secesionists and left parties which sing praises to USSR to this day and age. They waive red flags with hammers and sickles. So obviously that "stream" of wiki-users on Italian wiki prevailed. -- Imbris (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing by Imbris. Please use your own good judgment and facts in making decisions. --DIREKTOR 00:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The users which are present on this Misplaced Pages for a meere two months and who claim that English Misplaced Pages should be like the Italian one should reconsider their sources, this is the only thing I tryed to do. If such users do not clarify their position we should call them for what they really are. -- Imbris (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

?? I most certainly do not want to make this Misplaced Pages look like the Italian one! Where do you get that from? --DIREKTOR 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Louis Alexandre de Bourbon, comte de Toulouse

FactStraight, I have brought some changes to the article. One of them, a reference at Family and Death , is a link to an article in fr:wiki; although showing , the reference does not appear when clicking on . Would you mind fixing it? I added the link to References. Thank you. Frania W. (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also added reference next to & nothing happens when clicking on either one. Frania W. (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

I responded to your capitalization edits at Talk:Prince du Sang. WP:MOS-FR#Noble titles was specifically changed to allow the type of capitalization I use, which can be applied to the article Fils de France and all biographical articles of those who were actual Fils de France or Princes and Princesses du Sang. BoBo (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Prince of the blood

I did't write any article myself - as far as I can remember all I did was redirect the title away from the Prince section, to Prince du Sang. But strangely, I too have a memory of another, less French, article somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre

Would you mind taking a look at the last five revisions done on 12 May by 86.154.178.231 ? The changes do not bring anything new or noteworthy to the article; in fact they contradict what is already there & look to me as possible vandalism. Frania W. (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you FactStraight. Same "redundant or trivial information" is added to every article, making for unnecessary length, while interesting details are skipped - or removed without explanation, as was the case in several of my edits yesterday. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this update. I shall go thru the article & check with you before making any "conflicting" changes, or am in doubt about anything. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark (born 1971)

As you commented on the titles of Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark (born 1971) I don't know if you would be interested in commenting in the WP:RM. - dwc lr (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your stupidity

As you are aware, anything that i do gets reverted for no reason mainly by you; you use the WP:3RR the WP:SOCK and that stupid conciseness rubbish for your protection when really you know you are just doing it to be difficult and generally annoying.

As i saw at the top of your page, and i quote from another twit that You are doing nothing to improve the article by constantly reverting - this occuring regularly in the following:

• Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti - probably the best example of your obsession with having everything that way you want it;
• Henrietta Anne Stuart - i rearranged the page and added the Template:House of Stuart - clearly a tragedy;
• Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre‎ - added titles and styles - where are they; i even tried to compromise by removing the stlyes and putting back the titles but once again you must have your way;
• Victoire of France‎ - changed the awful layout along with her sister Princess Louise-Marie of France and Princess Marie Adélaïde of France

Why?

The latter is quite amusing to me proving that you dont even read the article - you simply revert back because I did it - all I did was move the Template:House of Bourbon (France) to a different part of the page! Then you and your chronic arrogance go and revert it under the claim that there are rv excessive, redundant trivia contained in other articles then as always you groan on an on about the usual rubbish with please don't violate WP:3RR or WP:SOCK WHAT IS YOUR POINT ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Shut up!

Where is this claim about the WP:SOCK even from - another one of your ridiculous thoughts. I will not back down.

I have a small bit of advice for you: maybe you should read the WP:OWN article for your own clarification on the matter. You really are a bore; and a selfish one at that.

Sure our paths will meet again - Happy editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.178.231 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Truce?

Fair enough, i understand; one point that i must make clear though is that i will not resist from adding/editing information to things which i find interesting etc (i.e. Louise etc). Personally, it is not me who links everything but that is of little matter. Also i do cite and use very 'reputable sources' for all information that i have contributed be it books or another source.

I will however, in keeping with the WP:3RR and personal choice, not edit anymore today but will resume later tomorrow; i will add such things and i would rather that you say to me what is unnecessary. Such things as lists of siblings (as has been seen i have a rather bad habit) etc will be kept to a minimum. Your views will be seriously noted.

As i said Sure our paths will meet again - Happy editing - this time not in such a vicious tone. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.178.231 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, FactStraight, I'm going to include this in my 3RR report, regardless of the fact that it might have concluded in a better manner than it started. Charles 20:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Cadet branch

Nice edit.--von Tamm (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

reverts etc

where is the sense in constantly reverting everything i do:

1) i will only revert it back; 2) naturally you are able to edit and know exactly what you are doing; as a result i do NOT see why you do not just edit the relevant article how you see fit and actually do something constructive with your time 3) it is a bore etc

so, as has been noted rather than using excuses for reverting - it is dull. please do not irritate me it is not needed. if teh edit that i have done is so terrible then inform me on the talk page - its what its for and its not like you havent. 86.164.90.95 (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong person to accuse

I have received your message and responded to it on the sockpuppeting page. I am not your sockpuppeteer and don't like being so accused. Many times I have redone User:86.154.178.231 et al's work to make it more readable in English, and that is it. I frequently alter articles when the writing does not flow appropriately. I am not the person adding all the unsourced information about titles, wealth, residences and descendants to the French royalty articles BoBo (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

???

tbh i have a hangova so i cant be bothered to read your whole dramactic story......write less :):):) 86.164.90.95 (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Francization of Brussels

You suggested the title be changed, but seem not to have read to the end of the talk page. Care to check out the suggestions at the bottom and see what you think of them? Your opinion will help. Thanks, Oreo Priest 12:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm II

I've started a requested move on Talk:William II, German Emperor. Since you somewhat supported my proposed move on his grandfather's article, could you please cast a vote on this one? Emperor001 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know canvassing was frowned upon. Emperor001 (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon

No problem. I'll leave a note on his talk page explaining him what "consensus" means. BTW is blatantly obvious that the anon = User:Tbharding as 86.164.90.95 edited his userpage twice (). I'll explain to him a few other policies Misplaced Pages policies & guidelines. If he continues his disruptive behavior after several more warnings I could see a ban, but we'll see. I don't think he has ever even been blocked yet in the first place however. Khoikhoi 04:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Louis of battenberg

Well...On the one hand I am not impressed with the introduction as a description of someone who seems to have been a competent admiral rising to the very top. On the other, the intro of a wiki article is supposed to be a fair summary of the article. The article is quite top heavy on his royal connections and so, logically, the intro would mirror this. However, assuming the intro stays about the same length, I would drop the start of para 2 about the queen intervening in his career, this is basically gossip about did she-didn't she, and have a middle para about his career. Being top in liutenants exam with best ever seamanship, inventing battenberg course indictor (assuming this is true and significant, seems to be), and some other career highlights. The third para comes back to his royal connections and I think needs to stay, as a marker of his place in tthe separate field of being a royal. Sandpiper (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

REDFLAG

Please respond to the request at Talk:Gian Gastone de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany#Gian Gastone's Private Life. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re

I am not the source of this information! I do not even remember myself editing this article! Anyway, I found the legislative decree in a requiring subscription Greek legal site. I cannot find an online translation, but it is about the Greek royal family. Article 2 may be of interest, defining the members of the royal family: 1) all the legitimate (those born out of wedlock are excluded) descendants of King George I, if they still hold the Hellenic citizenship and the arising from the Constitution (before 1974) right of succession, 2) the legitimate husbands and wives of the aforementioned persons or their widowers and widows (not re-married).

I don't know if this helps, but I cannot translate the whole decree, unless you want me to search for something very particular. In any case, User:DrKiernan is an expert with kings etc. He may be able to help!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop the vandalism on Michael I of Romania

... or else you will be reported to the appropriate Wiki authorities. Thank you in advance for your (unlikely) cooperation! Nontrickyy (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not revert now or else you will be in violation of 3RR. Nontrickyy (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you report me for 3RR violation, I'll report you for sheer vandalism. Nontrickyy (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

About Prince Pedro de Alcântara editing

Hello! Why was I blocked? I tried to reason with "DWC LR" and he didn´t even bother to answer me. I´ll repeat in here what I wrote to him:

"Hello!

I´ve seen the text you´ve put in the article about Pedro, eldest son of Isabel of Brazil and that renounced to his position as a brazilian prince. I would like to make a few comments:

1) Famous brazilians historians like Gilberto Freyre, Heitor Lyra and João Camillo has written about the renunciation and Luís´s accession as the new Prince Imperial. You can see it in the notes with the name of the authors, books and pages.

2) The original text that says that Pedro declared that his renunciation was invalid and not hereditary came from an unknown (pro-gastonist) writer in an obscure monarchist page. So, a biased text.

3) The text written by this unknown author that we don´t even know if he (she?) really exist it is a plagiarism from the french magazine "Point de Vue" from January 29, 1988 with the sole exception of this text where Pedro of Alcantara gives his opinion about his renunciation.

We can´t use a text that is a plagiarism from another and that doesn't even cite its sources."

As I told him, it´s quite weird that famous historians like the british Roderick J. Barman (author of "Citizen Emperor" and "Princess Isabel: Gender and Power in the nintieth century"), Gilberto Freyre (author of "Casa Grande e Senzala"), João Camillo Torres (author of "Democracia Coroada" or "Crowned Democracy"), Pedro Calmon, Heitor Lyra and many others all consider as a fact the renunciation of Pedro of Alcantara while the wikipedia´s editors are using as source a text from an unknown person from an obscure monarchist website.

I´d like to suggest you read the article Luís, Prince Imperial of Brazil. Anyway, I hope I helped a little bit. Thank you very much,

--Lecen (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hee hee! I don't think you've been blocked. You were simply seeing on my page here an old announcement telling me that I was blocked, regarding a different article. You stopped editing the article after 3 reverts, so you should be fine (but I was blocked for only 3 reverts, even though that is allowed -- so do be careful). It is usually considered a no-no on English Misplaced Pages to revert an edit that has a footnoted source attached: there is no Wiki rule against using an "obscure" source, if it can be accessed by the public. Nor is there a rule against using a "biased" source, as long as the source does not attempt to conceal its bias. But Royalty Digest is not usually considered an insignificant or biased source (except that it is generally "pro-monarchy" rather than "anti-monarchy"). If, however, you can cite evidence that the information in the article has been significantly plagiarized or fabricated, that would be grounds for deletion. Every dispute between pretenders attracts supporters to their side of the issue: I would expect that one would be able to find legal scholars that both uphold and reject Dom Pedro de Alcantara's renunciation. Articles must be balanced, so they cannot only reflect one point of view on a pretender's claim. But it would strengthen his case if you could quote or paraphrase more of his supporters' in the article, and indicate their legal or historian credentials. Thanks for the quote from the Princess Imperial: I think it is very persuasive. FactStraight (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello! You probably has already seen by now the letter of renunciation of dom Pedro de Alcântara and the letter sent by his mother, princess Isabel, to the Brazilian monarquistas. Now, did you read the reply sent by the monarchists? Here it is (it was written by João Alfredo):

"Ma'am,

I have the honour to bring to Your Imperial Majesty and to the Emperor and to the princes my wishes that the projected matrimony of sir dom Pedro brings him happiness for his great heart, and also a happy congratulation to the promising wedding, already celebrated, of sir dom Luiz.

As a brazilian and monarchist personally devoted to the Imperial Family, I have great joy of recognizing that all three princes are worthy of the great succession. From sir dom Luiz, that became the Heir Presumptive with the First-born´s voluntary renunciation, competently homologated by his August Parents, I know better, as I practised politics with him, the high capacity he has to assume such position. That God bless his activities from now on and the hopeful future it is my cordial and wishful vote."

João Alfredo it is the Counselor João Alfredo Corrêa de Oliveira, ex-prime minister that with Counselor Lafayette Rodrigues Pereira and the Viscount of Ouro Preto, both also ex-prime ministers, made the presidency of the Monarchic Directory. There is a copy of this letter and many others also in the Instituto de História e Geografia Brasileiro (IHGB) or Brazilian Institute of History and Geography (it has more than 160 years of existence and it is not a political institution).

Now take a look on what I found at the book "Monarchy: Truths and Lies", the "Bible" of the pro-Petrópolis branch (that is, dom Pedro de Alcântara and his son dom Gastão´s branch):

After the renunciation act - although invalid, this act - Dom Pedro de Alcântara persisted in keeping his renunciation, abstaining from exerting the Headship of the Imperial House? Yes, affirmative.

Dom Luiz received the Headship in a pacific, consensual and "just" way? Yes, that´s also affirmative; and even that after the death of dom Pedro de Alcântara sir dom Pedro IV has made his claim, that doesn´t mean that it neutralize the exercise of the Headship by Dom Luiz up to 1920, and Dom Pedro Henrique, at least up to 1940."

p.248 (fifth and sixth paragraphy)

It´s interesting to see that in this book, seen as a "Bible" by the pro-Petropolis branch followers, it aknowledges the fact that until his death dom Pedro kept his word and that at least until 1940, the Vassoura branch was generaly accepted as the legitimate heirs. --Lecen (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Princess Cristina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies

FactStraight, under family laws, Cristina was eligible to be heiress to the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies which is why the article is relevant. I do agree that it should be better sourced and I will work to resolve that issue. This article was 'translated' from the Italian version, but I requested that it be reviewed by Italian translators for a better translation. --Caponer (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Surname of French royal family

FactStraight: Glad to see you are agreeing with me. Please go to Surtsicna's talk page & read what I just left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Surtsicna#top

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

hello

hello.. i have just added some reference to the Anne Marie of Orléans article. as a result, i should think that it is fine as it is.

also..i do not mean to come across rude but i do not understand why you insist on reverting many changes made by many under the excuse of conciseness edits. if you have an issue with a piece of info on an artile i do not see why you have to revert it back to how it was last year. i do not understand why you simply "clear up" in way where you do not loose so much valuable info and further sources. wikipedia is afterall a team effort.

i look forward to hearing from you 86.149.172.104 (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

i thought i would have a more mature response. 86.149.172.104 (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bourbon related articles

FactStraight: Thank you for your msg concerning 86.149.172.104 ; 81.159.252.120 & Harding, esq. 120 seems to have been out of mischief since August 2008. However, I believe there is another one beside 104. I keep adding Bourbon-related articles to my watch list. Reverting is a tedious & time-consuming affair & I keep an eye on your contributions so that you do not have to go over the 3Rs - but a lot gets missed because Misplaced Pages is not our 24/24 occupation. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

FactStraight: Please go to Gaston d'Orléans talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaston,_Duke_of_Orl%C3%A9ans, where I left a msg after another mass revert by 86.149.172.104. Frania W. (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael of Romania

Please, cease your sneaky vandalism on this article: "Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes)." None of the paragraphs that you added in this edit quote any references and as such they are simply misinformation, plausible, but yet misinformation. Thus, they constitute sneaky vandalism. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in making this article better! Nontrickyy (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Westling errors

Your latest edit of Daniel Westling contains such a number of factual errors that it borders on vandalism to the previous very factual text provided by User:Tomas e, then edited and carefully, factually expanded by me. Of course I do not mind your wanting to copyedit to get things in your own style (I have no ego in this), but we must object to your abandonment of the very factual nature of the text. You are making a few things up as you go, in this case anyway, whereas Tomas e and I were very careful to be true to the facts. I will take the time to restore the facts to your text later today, and then must ask you very kindly not to do things like this. Agreed? Greets. 217.209.96.84 (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC) PS - Having recovered from a small shock and after rereading your text, I must add in all fairness that you also have contributed a few interesting, factuals details that were not there before. Thank you!. Of course I won't remove them this afternoon, I'll just fix a few errors. 217.209.96.84 (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm done there now. If you feel any of the terminology is not up to par, please fix it for us! But please also be kind to those facts of ours. Don't miss the new section in Discussion there! Thank you again for all the good work you do all over! 217.209.96.84 (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again and thank you for more good work on Westling. Princesses of Sweden have been duchesses on their own since 1980 - that's almost 30 years. There has been intermittent publicity about Victoria and personal connections/special visits to "her" province since she became 18 in 1996 and about Madeleine and "hers" since about 1999. I think that's traditional enough and that that omittance is a factual error as it stands now. Would you mind if I put this back in? If you do, please reply on the Westling talk page and we can discuss it there. 217.209.96.250 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't agree that 30 years of participation (by 2 females) in a 300+ year tradition clearly establishes them as part of that tradition. However, since you were so courteous as to ask before acting, I will gladly defer to you on this point. Feel free to make the appopriate change. BTW, thank you also for your corrections on Daniel Westling's article: I had mixed up Carl Bernadotte with Oscar Bernadotte. Now fixed. My point in mentioning Oscar & Hessenstein in this article is that there are at least 3 precedents for a male joining the Swedish Royal Family to consider in doing so as a prince (e.g. Daniel, Furste av Westling, Prins Daniel Westling, Prins Daniel, Hertig av Westling), bearing in mind that English translates both Furste and Prins as "prince". As you noted, we're in virgin territory here, and there are lots of options, so let's not ignorantly omit any. FactStraight (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. Done. As a mattar of fact(straight) there have been 4 types of princely titles. Carl's was however bestowed by his brother-in-law Belgium so he was actually a prince (Bernadotte) of the Belgian nobility. No problem removing it, very good you put the others in. Oscar's princely was very odd and no one really knew what to make of it. Father Oscar II (Sr.) loved being King (loved wearing the old crown) and did as he pleased with this one. Jr.'s wife (a noblewoman) was also allowed to be called Princess Ebba, but of What?. Never seen anything like that odd title anywhere. I have a sneaky feeling they will go all the way with Dansy-Wansy (pardon an irresistable Americanism, did you see the Youtube thing?) and he will be of Sweden and HRH, but Sweden (himself) is getting quite unpredictable and increasingly mischievous in his older days, so we'll have to wait and see what he's up to. This is one of the very few things of any historical significance that he gets to decide on his own. It has gotten to be quite pleasant and very interesting chatting with you a bit about these things. Let's continue to support each other's work when our paths cross, and assist in that work as well we we can. I have access to a huge and very reliable private library on these topics, especially the Swedish and some Native American chiefs (!). Thanx again! 217.209.96.65 (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

West thing not Westling this time

Do you only do real royalty or would you be willing to give us an opinion that might help about the Queen of Hollywood at Talk:Mae West new section re: photo caption? 217.209.96.65 (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to note - Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/EmilEikS related this IP to User:EmilEikS, who was determined to be using a sock puppet during this RfC, after which the sock was blocked and EmilEikS resigned from Misplaced Pages rather than participate. The IP used sock puppets to try and vote-stack a consensus request at Talk:Mae West in order to coatrack the person in the crypt image into the article. The major "bruhaha" was of the IP's making. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Salic law and agnatic primogeniture

Hello! According to Salic law, only male-line male descendants can succeed. The agnatic primogeniture follows the same principle. See Salic law: The best-known tenet of Salic law is agnatic succession, the rule excluding females from the inheritance of a throne or fief. Indeed, "Salic law" has often been used simply as a synonym for agnatic succession. I don't understand why you changed agnatic primogeniture to Salic law if it's the same thing. Of course, agnatic primogeniture would also apply to male-line female descendants since a woman can also be someone's agnate, but in that case the term cognatic-agnatic primogeniture is used (although just agnatic wouldn't be wrong either). Surtsicna (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As you note above, "agnatic primogeniture" necessarily implies that a female agnate (such as Elizabeth II in the context of the House of Windsor) is eligible to inherit the throne. The term is therefore ambiguous, where "Salic law" is not. Italy, like France, completely excluded women from its succession, whether they were agnates of the dynasty or not. Since it is possible for a monarchy to be Salic and yet not restrict the throne to agnates (Spain had such a succession between 1947 and 1978), the clarification you added may be needed. So-called "agnatic-cognatic primogeniture" is so obscure a term in English that I am inclined to believe that it was created -- as unsourced, original research -- and imposed on Misplaced Pages's definition of Primogeniture by the same editor (using various IPs when editing this article & its talk page back in April 2005, e.g. 213.243.176.125 and 62.78.104.193 and 62.78.120,161, but later edited Wiki articles as Shilkanni and nowadays posts on Japanese, Finnish & medieval royalty as "M.Sjostrom"). who erroneously defined "agnatic primogeniture" as a synonym for "Salic". Although I try to avoid the awkward "male-line male" terminology, your correction at Prince Umberto of Savoy is fine. FactStraight (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the context of Elizabeth II succeeding to the throne, the term "agnatic" is certainly NOT used. Her succession comes from the tradition of cognatic succession. Please do not over-theoretisize the actual usage. It is immaterial if daughters somewhere in some context can be called as "agnatic" descendants - it is certain that in the succession terminology, no female is ever an agnate. agnates are always males. 82.181.239.182 (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

primogeniture sorts

FYI, there is no difference between agnatic primogeniture and primogeniture by Salic Law. No difference. It would be better, if you will not entertain mistaken ideas about that (= you need to get facts straight in this, too). 82.181.239.182 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Tomislav"

Hi, I've replied to your post on Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta. I'll be honest, your vote sounds like a misunderstanding has occurred. Firstly, a significant number of sources have so far confirmed that Aimone "never assumed the throne" and was a "king that never was". He was named as king by his royal cousin and sovereign, but steadfastly refused to assume that position - in effect remaining "King-Designate of Croatia" (Stevan K. Pavlowitch).

Secondly, "is it used now to refer to a notable person during some period in his life?". No. All sources I've nanaged to find about this (and there are some pretty good ones) never refer to him by any other name other than "Aimone" - except when mentioning what his name would have been after he took the crown (which he swore not to do). could I please see the source that supports the idea that if a person is at all referred to as "king" by anyone at all today - that we are supposed to title an article after that fraction of Google hits.

Thirdly, I don't see why you "opposed by default"? Especially with the Google Books and Google Scholar test results? --DIREKTOR 21:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, sorry if I was a nuisance. :) Its just that the previous move was for some reason rejected because of votes with imperfect rationale. The title of this article is terrible, and has to change either way. --DIREKTOR 21:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomislav II of Croatia

I believe that the current title should stay because it is a result of several years of compromises (2007, 2008). Also Misplaced Pages:Consensus as a rule should be applied because the survey included users that have no opinion on the matter, contribute nothing new, but rather insist on defining who is the pretender. -- Imbris (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, the only reason you want this title is that "Tomislav II" would be so silly and contradicted by so many sources it would be obvious how absurd it is. --DIREKTOR 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

'Tomislav II, 4th Duke of Aosta' is out of the question. Just like the following 'Albert II of Belgium, Prince of Liege' or 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Duke of Normandy' would be. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Louis Alexandre de Bourbon (1747–1768)

FactStraight,

Glad to see you are back. Maybe "no one has, as yet, objected to all these moves" because "no one" (namely you) was (not) here to object... If you care to check my history of these past few months, I have been busier fighting windmills than doing serious editing, thus lacking time to follow up the Bourbon changes & other articles of interest. And right now, I only check once in a while because busy outside wikiland. The most effective manner could be to leave a note on the discussion page of the Bourbon when they are moved and/or on that of our Silent-but-Prolific editor. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Isabel(la)

Hello, FactStraight! I just wanted to explain my edits to Monarchy of Spain. Isabella is also Latin for Isabel. English speaking historians call her Isabella and our articles also call her Isabella (thus we have Isabella II of Spain and Isabella I of Castile instead of Isabel II of Spain and Isabel I of Castile). The article should also link to Isabella II of Spain because editors should avoid redirects. The French term I mentioned was aînesse intégrale. I am not aware that that term is commonly used in English instead of full cognatic primogeniture. Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Radu

Thanks for your support concerning the Radu Duda article. I think your comment was to the point.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Every day every edit you make will be reversed. You are a vandal. You remove cited work from articles. There are too many of us for you to stop us. Be told! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.14.15.4 (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tfoxworth (talk · contribs)

Hi FactStraight. Just wanted to let you know that I have undone your recent edit to Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Rollback, as that wasn't the right place to file the report. Next time Tfoxworth goes on a vandal spree, please report all IP addresses/usernames to WP:AIV, where they will be dealt with promptly. Regards, FASTILY 22:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with TFoxworth

Hey, I didn't realize how deep the problem went. Wow. I know very little about David Bagration of Mukhrani but I've become familiar with the pattern of vandalism that occurs and can keep the page relatively clean (and make it conform better to WP standards here and there). As for the other pages , I've edited a few of them and will try to add some to my daily patrols. Is there any way of dealing with this other than indefinite semi-protection? SQGibbon (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Get your facts straight!

The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty presently consists of over 40 members and contributors and seven board members and corporation officers. This includes some scholars and experts in the field of nobility and royalty. No one is paid. This is an association organized to benefit society with what we consider to be of great worth and value. They average about 15,000+ hits a day. (See their Public Monthly Newsletter) Outside objective auditors include the Better Business Bureau which has give them an A- rating, and they are master members of belong to the International Council of Online Professionals (i-Cop: The Seal of Integrity in Online Business).

When you say in the Talk articles on Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky and David Bagration of Mukhrani that the Commission is a one man operation, you are presenting a falsehood. If you are really committed to having you "facts straight" you should not misinform. An aquaintance will monitor and correct you or I will if each day if necessary, but we hope you have higher morals than to publish something which is clearly a misrepresentation of reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthHonesty (talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You're Not being neutral about this!

There you go again slamming instead of being neutral. What is it with you? You are breaking the wiki guidelines on this. Leave out the garbage. It is a misrepresentation and therefore unethical. Again, quoting directly from their website:

The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty presently consists of over 40 members and contributors and seven board members and corporation officers. This includes some scholars and experts in the field of nobility and royalty. No one is paid. This is an association organized to benefit society with what we consider to be of great worth and value. We average about 15,000+ hits a day. (See our "Public Newsletter") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.20.182 (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

I don't have the time, inclination or energy to fight. I have no interest in doing so. I just want to reconcile and move on. I propose that we both take down our recent words and let this go. Of course, I would not mind to have you show us all the mispellings and gramatical errors you can find, but it is not fair to ask that of you.

My email address is on the bottom of my entry, lets fix this. Please contact me. This is what Wiki's guideline would want of us, and it is what I want. Sincerely (TruthHonesty) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthHonesty (talk • contribs) 21:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobile

The 63.26.xxx IP has a history of hoax edits for articles related to Italian nobility. I'm not trying to enable the block evading sockpuppet vandal who was trying to copy your nick any more than you are trying to enable the block evading hoaxer sockpuppet. Thanks. Edward321 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiBirthday

I saw from here that it's been exactly two years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 12:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems with editor Fernande

Fact, there was recently a discussion in the talk page of article Gaston, comte d'Eu about and editor called Fernandoe who insists on changing the meaning of sourced text although the source does not says what he writes. To be more clear, he insists on adding "surnames" to royals. The discussion, as you can see since you were also part of it, agreed that his editions do not make any sense. Worse: he did not bother to participate in it. I am tired of serving as nothing more as a watch dog reverting his edits. Something must be done about him and fast. --Lecen (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material in BLP

I don't mean to validate any banned users, but that Michael of Romania is on my watchlist. It's inappropriate to remove a good faith entry from the talk page. Unless you think you can find a source for the material I'll delete it again. Regardless of the banned user, unsourced negative remarks should not be kept in BLPs.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

NCROY archives

No idea what problem you saw with my edit at the older archives list; but anyway, all these old archives should be renamed so that they are subpages of the current talk page (so that the search button on the archive box works properly) - any objection?--Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Reverts on Nobility article

The reverts you are making on the Nobility article are beginning to seem like acts of an edit war. I am adding content supported by references which demonstrate the comments on the status of the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia to be a neutral point of view. They also are not peacock terms as they are supported by reliable and verifiable references. I would ask you to reconsider your reversionary actions. Editor8888 (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are POV because they do not add relevant factual information (let alone "demonstrate the comments on the status of the Stair Memorial Encyclpaedia" -- who confers "status" on an encyclopedia?), but puffery: they are being inappropriately used to buttress one side of an argument (the current validity of Innes' opinion as to what constitutes "nobility" in Scotland). Simply let the quote speak for itself, and people can look up Innes and Stair to decide for themselves their "authoritativeness". The contention that an encyclopedia may be cited in a legal case is meaningless and misleading because anything can be so cited -- and is then subject to rebuttal. Your claim that it is "authoritative" is not a declaration from either law or judge, but is an opinion intended to give the impression that Innes is authoritative because Stair reflects his POV, and that Stair has been cited judicially, so Innes is somehow authoritative on this particular point. Peacockery is inappropriate and will be deleted. It isn't somehow acceptable because it can be referenced: it is how the referenced material is used that determines whether it is deletable exaggeration. Stop mixing opinion and fact to promote a POV.FactStraight (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I would suggest you read this link. You will see that status is conferred on this encylopaedia by the Law Society of Scotland, through this official Scottish professional body's patronage of its production. Do not let the word 'encyclopaedia' confuse you; this is not simply one of any number of legal reference works, but is an authoritative statement of the Laws of Scotland. It is not cited in court as anyone may be and is not open to rebuttal. It would be necessary to demonstrate how and why it didn't apply. It is an authoritative statement of the law. If you are familiar with Halsbury's Statutes in England, you should know that Stair has the same status in Scotland. This is not opinion, but fact. Someone with expertise in this area would know this. The recent wording of the Nobility article was not neutral as it had been manipulated in a way to deny the present legal position as expounded in Scots law and to give undue emphasis to a single scholar who admits his opinions 'are far from definitive'. To accentuate this over the Laws of Scotland, where is the credibility in that? Editor8888 (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nobility. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Editor8888 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for peer review on article about Emperor Pedro II of Brazil.

Hi! If you have interest and time, could you take a look at Pedro II of Brazil and share some thoughts on what it is lacking to be nominated to Featured article? Here is the the peer review page: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Pedro II of Brazil. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for edit-warring on Anne Marie d'Orléans. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Misplaced Pages:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, FactStraight. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have been blocked from editing for violating Misplaced Pages policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.