User talk:DrKiernan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I noticed that you have edited some information about Bardiya. I desperatly looking for any information re his life. I don't believe the biased Egyptian and greek interpretation of his life as they were persian enemies at the time. Anyway, do you know, name of the Egyption princess who were sent to persia to marry Cambiz? And was the cause of the great war between two countries? I really appreciate this. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdhtaran (talkcontribs) 19:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Windsor

Now that we've sorted out the nonsense such as Empress Matilda being Salian and/or Angevin, what to do with Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother? I'd gladly replace "House of Windsor" with "Bowes-Lyon". On the other hand, she may well have been considered a Windsor, that being the modern custom. The phrase Elizabeth Windsor never refers to her, though. Do biographers call her a Windsor? I very much doubt that genealogists do. I imagine Diana, Camilla, Sophie, Catherine and others are in the same basket. Surtsicna (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's probably an inconsistent mess. I imagine Diana is very frequently called a Spencer and Catherine is often called Middleton, but do many people know Camilla's maiden name? I doubt it. I couldn't remember Sophie's: I had to look it up just now. It's probably easy to find these included in Windsor, because as you say inclusion in the modern family is often loose. The same thing seems to happen in the Netherlands: the house is always Orange, even though it is maternal. DrKiernan (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I see. Consistency should never come before accuracy, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It might be best not to bother with houses in the infobox for those people where it's not certain/rarely applied. DrKiernan (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
As in leaving the house parameter empty? Surtsicna (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. DrKiernan (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth II's infobox

Just wanted to thank you for changing your stance & choosing to support ..of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms :) GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Changing the title

Hi. I have problem with this article, Mihrişah Valide Sultan. Because another sultana was named Emine Mihrişah Sultan in Ottoman history, this page was named Mihrişah Valide Sultan. But like Gülbahar Hatun and Emine Gülbahar Hatun these two pages should be named Mihrişah Sultan and Emine Mihrişah Sultan. Can you move Mihrişah Valide Sultan to Mihrişah Sultan, pleaes? Keivan.fTalk 18:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry. There was a prior discussion at Talk:Mihrişah Sultan#Requested move, and so I'm unable to move it as a technical request. It'll have to go through Wikipedia:Requested moves as a potentially controversial move. DrKiernan (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi. Do you know what is the date of Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon's burial? Keivan.fTalk 13:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I presume her ashes were interred on the same day as her mother's coffin: 9 April. DrKiernan (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 16:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Abimelech (Judges)

Hi, I saw your edit on the article. I just want to know why you placed the city of Shechem as the spouse of Abimelech in the infobox. -- Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Because someone else said she was a concubine but the template does not recognise a "concubine" parameter. DrKiernan (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I placed the template there like almost two years ago. It was a copy template from Solomon, so I was just curious about the edit, that's all. -- Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 26 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Images on Royal Family templates

Just letting you know, since you were involved, that the 'slow burn edit war' about the image at Template:British Royal Family was followed by Keivan.f deciding to remove the images from what was apparently all such templates (I stopped counting somewhere around 50) without any edit summaries or discussion on those talk pages. I became aware of this after a help request was made at Template talk:Swedish Royal Family, with imput by several people there who were fairly upset. Given that Keivan.f had previously been trying to keep such an image, I reverted all of the removals, and dropped him a 'non-admin warning' about disruptive editing to make a point. I also reverted the removal by Surtsicna at the British template with a comment about BRD and not 'discussing' in edit summaries... you can see the 'followup' to that in the history of Template:British Royal Family and my comment on User talk:Surtsicna. I have no real 'horse in this race', though I think the removal of the images is fairly silly, but I suspect this is going to turn into something that needs admin intervention unless some strong cluebattery and a centralized discussion somewhere occurs. Reventtalk 11:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What's silly is having the coat of arms of one person in a template that represents his entire family, i.e. people who have different coats of arms, or a state coat of arms in a template that lists people who each have their own coat of arms. We have group photographs of these people that would actually serve some purpose in the template - depicting the people who are listed in it. Images of random coats of arms have no purpose, which is why they are often arbitrarily replaced with other useless images, such as greater coat of arms instead of the lesser coat of arms, or emblems, or flags, etc. These templates do not have to contain images, and they shouldn't contain them simply for the sake of containing them. Surtsicna (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: It would be nice, and appropriate, if you were to discuss issues with particular images on the talk pages of the templates where those images are used. You are perfectly correct that if the coat of arms is 'wrong', as in being personal, or not of the family, that the image should be removed. They should not be removed without any explanation, however, as what done in the large set of edits that I reverted, and you should definitely not be edit warring or trying to engage in 'discussion' in edit summaries, as that is not behavior that leads to any kind of consensus. Instead, if you were to actually engage in discussion instead of edit warring, and use talk pages properly, there would be a documented 'history' of discussion of what images were not correct, and the issues could actually be solved. I have not been saying that the templates have to have images, they do not, and I have actually encouraged Keiven.f to remove the ones that are flags with edits that acutally explain why he is removing the image in the edit summary. Your removal of the British image was not based on arguments like that, though, but instead on your 'opinion' that it didn't serve any purpose, and a complaint that it made the template longer. You are perfectly entitled to have those opinions, and to edit on the basis of them... you are not entitled to re-revert people that express disagreement by reverting you, or to 'discuss' it in the edit summaries of your repeated reverts. That is edit warring and disruptive behavior. Reventtalk 13:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I posed a question at Template talk:Spanish Royal Family a few minutes ago. I doubt I am about to receive a proper explanation, though. Please bear in mind that I did not perform the large set of edits that you reverted, nor did I encourage Keivan.f to perform those edits. If I explain my edit using an edit summary, I should not be expected to explain it again on the talk page when someone reverts it without any explanation. When Keivan.f reverted it with an explanation, he went to my talk page to discuss it. There is nothing inappropriate about that. You then appeared out of thin air, reverting the edit merely because it had been reverted days before and despite the fact that it hadn't been contentious since. That is disruptive. Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I can only speak for Sweden, and will now do so on that talk page. The image is relevant, as I will explain there.
One would think that the motivation would be obvious, though. In principle it seems to me that the royal coat of arms of any nation (which in the case of Sweden is the exact same as the monarch's coat of arms) is very representative of the whole reason why that particular family is royalty in that particular country. Without that monarch, and thus without that specific coat of arms, those people would not be a royal family. I really don't know where to put this, but please quote me anywhere if you'd like, or tell me where to write it!
I cannot leave here without adding this: For years and years now, I have seen certain tendencies among a few editors who deal almost exclusively with royalty (NOTE: I am not accusing anyone by name!) that could be interpreted as en ever-increasing feeling of ownership of all articles on that subject. At worst, there's a tendency which I would interpret as a desire to make changes and secure input mainly out of an I-am-equally-as-important-as-those-people-and-I-have-the-right-to-put-my-personal-stamp-on-their-articles-and-make-a-bit-of-history-myself attitude. Anyone who might agree with me about having noticed anything like that (in the work of others or the work of oneself) might like to take a constructive interest in curtailing such desires. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Plain English

Hi. I saw your edit on Catherine's article. Please do the same with Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester. Also I have a question. Shouldn't it be like this: for example, born Catherine Elizabeth "Kate" Middleton on 9 January 1982. Keivan.fTalk 18:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think in retrospect the "on" helps. For some reason, "born Catherine Middleton on 9 January 1982" seems slightly clearer than "born Catherine Middleton 9 January 1982", even though the "on" should not be strictly necessary. Perhaps it's because it separates the two facts (birth name and birth date), making them easier to read as two items. DrKiernan (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne

I became confused when I looked at Lady Helen Taylor's article. It isn't clear that who is in line of succession before her. I became more confused when I looked at other people's article who are in the line of succession. I think you can solve this problem by finding an up to date list of the people who are in this line. Also Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester's article needs improvement. With your knowledge I think you rewrite some of this article's sections in the future and add reliable sources to them. Keivan.fTalk 12:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The line after Lady Amelia Windsor is not certain because it is not clear whether Catholics are excluded on baptism or confirmation. If the former, then the sons of Lord Nicholas Windsor are excluded, it the latter, then they could be eligible. DrKiernan (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on the RfC regarding the Ebola virus epidemic

Hello Dr. Kiernan, per the policy regarding publicizing RfC’s, your name was chosen at random from the list of editors who participate in them.

The RfC link is here.

The question is:

Should we keep these newly created separate country articles about the Ebola epidemic, or should we delete/redirect them to the article Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa?

Your participation is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

SW3 5DL (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sarah, Duchess of York

I have searched for her honours a long time. Are you sure that she didn't have any honorary military appointment, any special royal order or something? Keivan.fTalk 16:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any in the London Gazette, so I guess she didn't have any. DrKiernan (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source

I'm trying to find a source for this paragraph which is from Diana, Princess of Wales's article:

Within a month Diana had begun seeing Dodi Fayed, son of her host that summer, Mohamed Al-Fayed. Diana had considered taking her sons that summer on a holiday to the Hamptons on Long Island, New York, but security officials had prevented it. After deciding against a trip to Thailand, she accepted Fayed's invitation to join his family in the south of France, where his compound and large security detail would not cause concern to the Royal Protection squad. Mohamed Al-Fayed bought a multi-million-pound yacht, the Jonikal, a 60-metre yacht on which to entertain Diana and her sons.

But when I do a Google search I don't know which source is reliable and which is not. Or about these paragraphs which are about her ancestry but I have problem to find a good source for them (but they're not currently in the article):

Diana also descends from the House of Wittelsbach via morganatic line from Frederick V, Elector Palatine and of the House of Hanover via Sophia von Platen und Hallermund, Countess of Leinster and Darlington, the illegitimate daughter of Ernest Augustus, Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg and the half sister of George I. Diana also descends from the House of Toledo of the original dukes of Alba and Medina Sidonia, who itself descends from the medieval royal House of Burgundy which rule the Kingdoms of Galicia, Castile and León through the line of Alfonso XI, King of Castile.
Diana also descended from ancient noble and royal Gaelic families of Ireland from her mother's side. From her maternal great-great grandfather, Edmond Roche, 1st Baron Fermoy, Diana descends from both the O'Donovan family who ruled the Kingdom of Desmond until the 13th century and became semi-sovereign princes of Carbery from the line of Donal IV O'Donovan, Lord of Clancahill, the De Barry family, an ancient family of Cambro-Norman origins who descends from Rhiwallon ap Cynfyn, a Welsh prince and the O'Shaughnessy family, a family which descends from Guaire Aidne mac Colmáin, King of Connacht.

Can you help me, please? Keivan.fTalk 19:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

But I'm sure that I'll find some source for the paragraph which is about her life after divorce but I really have problem with the last two ones. Keivan.fTalk 19:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't restore the last two paragraphs, and indeed would favor a reduction in the current coverage of her ancestry. Her immediate family, the Indian connection and her descent from Charles II are notable and are often covered in biographies, but none of the other connections are. DrKiernan (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Also I had a question. As an administrator don't you think these articles can be good articles: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Diana, Princess of Wales and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall? Keivan.fTalk 09:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
They probably stand a good chance. Good articles are determined by editors at WP:GAN though, it isn't restricted to admins. DrKiernan (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Review article

Could you review this article? I created it and it hasn't been reviewed and I created it at least a week ago.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW're not supposed to use rollback in these cases [1]. Stars of 85 (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Rollback, use of rollback is permitted "where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear". DrKiernan (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
In other words, vandalism, my summary clearly stated that I was restoring what I initially saw to be mass blanking without consensus and nobody would deem it any different. --Stars of 85 (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I wanted to expand the symbolism section about Diana, Princess of Wales's arms in her article. I thought maybe Coat of Arms of Winston Churchill can be use full as half of his arm's shield is similar to Diana's arms since they were both from the Spencer family. I tried to use the description in that file which is about the parts of the arms that are the same with Diana's one, but I have problem in understanding the sentences. As you're a native speaker I think you can help me with this. Keivan.fTalk 18:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything there about the symbolism: it's explaining the color and design of each element and how they differed between different branches of the family, but it doesn't explain what they are supposed to mean. DrKiernan (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Why the article of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall's mother is titled Rosalind Cubitt? I think its title should change to Rosalind Shand. She was a married woman and never divorced her husband. Her surname should be Shand, the surname of her husband. Like Diana's, Sarah's and Catherine's mothers and also like Camilla's sister and daughter. Keivan.fTalk 18:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
There's no previous move discussion and the target is a red link, so you could just move it as described at Wikipedia:Moving a page. DrKiernan (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why User:Retrieverlove just moves pages without clear reasons. Except creating separate articles, he just moves a page about a person to another title and changes the whole material. Recently he moved Meylişah Hatun to Şehzade Ömer. Now I can't separate these two articles. He should get a warning. Keivan.fTalk 20:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Divorce in the Church of England

The article Mary of Teck is misleading without clarification on the issue of divorce in the Church of England. In 1936, it was absolutely out of the question for a divorced person to be married in church, and that is what precipitated the scandal. Today, it is possible for a divorced person to be married in church, and surely, an "exception" would be found if today the sovereign wished to marry a divorced person. My edit is necessary to demonstrate that the rules have changed and to show that Wallis Simpson was merely born ahead of her time.John Paul Parks (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

They were married by an Anglican priest. Henry VIII married six times, each time in a church. A complex situation is not made simpler by the addition of three unnecessary words. DrKiernan (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sinking of the RMS Titanic and IP vandal

I suspect that has also been busy causing trouble as and others. Tonight's is Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Queen of Bhutan's article

In response to User:Hipposcrashed's complaints, which have since been removed. I apologise to him/her for irritating him/her. My edits were made in good faith. Please allow me to explain. Surname: Queens of Bhutan traditionally take the Royal Name. This can be seen in all of the previous queens' official names. The fact that Jetsun Pema's official Facebook page refers to her as 'Druk Gyaltsuen Jetsun Pema Wangchuck' should be confirmation enough that she has taken on the surname 'Wangchuck'. The page is moderated by her office and has been confirmed by Facebook. 'Ashi' is not her tittle. Her official title is 'Gyaltsuen'. 'Ashi' loosely means princess and was used to refer to women of Royal Families or noble birth. Since the Royal Wedding, Jetsun Pema has been referred to as 'Gyaltsuen Jetsun Pema' in all formal documents in Bhutan. Similarly, men of noble birth and princes are referred to colloquially as 'Dasho' but this is incorrect, as Dasho is a formal title given to people, similar to knighthood in the UK. Princes would be traditionally called 'Gyalse'. Son of a King, literally. I have painstakingly added several reference articles from local media of Bhutan. I hope these are not removed. I removed the tulips section because there were several gifts to the king and queen surely, but the others are not mentioned. However, I don't have a problem with leaving that be.

United 93 (film)

Hello DrKiernan,

It looks as though our sock is back with the same content, same spelling mistakes and same location. I have reverted the edit, but expect them to be back unless action is taken now to stop these edits. Can I leave this with you please? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

DrKiernan, Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! DrKiernan (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please move article

Please move Jetsun Pema of Bhutan to Jetsun Pema. The other queen consorts of Bhutan such as Dorji Wangmo have that style.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ediacaran Turbation

Hi, I believe the situation of the disturbing/bioturbation of the Ediacaran biota was that, after the Ediacaran organisms were buried alive in a rapid burial scenario, their remains would be undisturbed long enough to be preserved, whereas in the Cambrian, the chances of a buried organism with no hard parts lasting long enough to become preserved/fossilized drop significantly due to the appearance of burrowing organisms. At least, that's what I've been told.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

I hope this works, I am not too good with these things: Anna Anderson was a German girl from Hygendorf in Pomerania. I know it is a small detail, but she was born in Germany, but of Polish heritage. In King and Wilson's book "The Resurrection of the Romanovs", you will find a copy of her birth certificate on page 268, clearly stating that she was born in Borek. That the town today is part of modern Poland, does not make Anna Anderson Polish. ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I know where she was born; I was the one who added it[2]. I have read King and Wilson[3], and it is their opinion that her first language was Kashubian and her second Polish (p. 273). She learnt German at school (as a third language). She was not ethnically German. Most sources say she was Polish and none say she was German, and so, per wikipedia policy, we should do the same. DrKiernan (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
To put on record my total support for DrKiernan's comments above. Having researched this case for over fifty years, I can find no creditable source saying that Anna Anderson was German. David J Johnson (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I know this is a minor detail, but she was born in Germany (Preussen) which makes her a German citizen. This is also how she represents herself in her Abmeldung from December 20th, 1917. I guess she can be called German of Polish extraction ChatNoir24 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Haven't you read any of the above? Please stop your nonsense,which is not accepted by anyone interested in the case. You have just had a three-day block, please re-read all the comments regarding your "contributions". Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Look at line 6 where it clearly says Staatsangehörigkeit: Preussen. Not Poland. ChatNoir24 (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Charles I of England

Your change here is a good idea with two Charles around, and he was PoW before becoming king. Any idea why it affects the reference list, though? Have a look and see what I mean. Britmax (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Review articles

Please review these two articles: Bay (shelving) and National Day of Monaco.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Rending of garments, gnashing of teeth

I got outbid for the tuxedo jacket S. Z. Sakall wore in Casablanca in today's Bonhams/TCM auction. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

My commiserations, but surely with his figure, I hope it wouldn't fit? ;-) DrKiernan (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


... work! Thanks for jumping in. The problem now at WP:FAS is that the links to the month-end page diff at WP:FA show total FAs out of sync with the number reported in the chart, since the FA page had errors. So, we need to footnote the WP:FAS chart, at those dates where you found errors, with a link to the errors found, for posterity. Do you want to do that when you're all done, or should I? And, I'm worried that, if those numbers were once in sync, were the actual errors only in the math, or have you been able to step back through the WP:FA page diff by diff in those months to locate what happened?

I'm separately concerned that we make sure someone stays on top of this (it's work I used to do, but I wondered if it had been done since I stepped out ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

First error [4]. Second error [5]. I'm not sure how to represent this in the table, if at all, so will leave it to you. DrKiernan (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
you're good ... so now, I'm worried that more editors aren't following FA additions. I used to love having people behind me, watching my back, as errors like that are not unexpected or unusual ... plenty of eyes helped me. Glad you are locating the exact source, since we can then be sure our FAS numbers and tallies are intact. I will footnote the chart once settled. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. I will update the FAS chart after dinner (and put a summary at WT:FA for linking, unless you already have). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I added the footnote at WP:FAS; could you pls review and adjust if needed? Thanks !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


Sir, how dare you go about deprecating my parameters! But seriously, your devoted Wiki-gnoming is much appreciated, and I have taken note of the preferred parameters. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 18:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User: SCentanni

Hello Dr Kiernan, Can I ask for your advice/action please. User: SCentanni has made numerous unsourced edits to quite a number of film articles, which have almost all been reverted by several editors. On the Vertigo (film) article they have tried to alter the film category, which I have reversed twice as unsourced and POV and left a note on their Talk page each time. None of these notes have been answered. Now the same alteration has been made again by IP: Looking at this IP's history, I strongly suspect that this is just a sockpuppet account of the above user. Could I please ask you to look into this? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Dr Kiernan, I'm afraid to say that User: SCentanni has reverted to their "edit" again - still without explanation. I have reverted back with the usual unsourced POV claim, but do not want to edit war. Can I suggest that further action is taken, as they don't seem to take any notice of any editor who asks them for a reason? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Once again, many thanks for all your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That British Lincoln/Titanic editor

might be at it again, see this Talktalk IP's ( edits. Shearonink (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Earl of Mar

I notice that the articles on the various earls of Mar that I moved recently have been moved again: It might have been handy if you'd let me know what the problem was with the moves, and I wouldn't have wasted so much time fixing incoming links to the wrong titles.
As it is, the main difference I can see is you've used a different hyphen: Which is itself a problem, as my keyboard doesn't seem to have that one; is it a special character, or something? Otherwise, it'll need cutting-and-pasting when the incoming links are fixed again. Swanny18 (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just used an ndash as recommended by WP:DATERANGE. DrKiernan (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've lost me, here. I gather typing &+ndash+; (apologies for format; the nowiki doesn't preserve the text) produces the long hyphen in the text; is that what we are to use in links and article titles as well? Swanny18 (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't worry too much about the links, since clicking on a link with a hyphen in it will still take you to the correct page in this case as the redirects are set up accordingly. I think you can insert ndashes in running text with the wikitext – but I don't think that works with links or article titles. The usual way I do a ndash is by using the "insert" function which is just below the edit box and just above the edit summary box: there is a little pull-down menu for "Insert", "Wiki markup" "Symbols", etc. On the "Insert" option, the ndash is the nearest field to the pull-down menu. Click on that icon and it will insert a ndash where the cursor is (as an alternative it can also be dragged into position). There is also a script, User:GregU/dashes.js, that will correct dashes/hyphens according to the Manual of Style. (Documentation on how to use it is at User talk:GregU/dashes.js.) Another script, which I've never used, is User:GregU/hotkeys.js, which should define shortcut keys on your keyboard for use in text boxes. I think that latter one only works in Firefox. (Documentation for that is at User talk:GregU/hotkeys.js: To install this script without your own customization, try adding
to your personal JavaScript page.) DrKiernan (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah! Thanks for that; I will try those out and see what I can make of them. Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Queen Paola

Hello, DrKiernan.
Do you wanna upload this file for me? You can open that image in this link:
Please upload it because every images that I uploaded are all deleted by admin users.
Betty de Bottiens (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't find the license details for that file. I believe your files are deleted because they do not comply with the image use policy. DrKiernan (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete request

Delete this Future legitimate issue of the Prince of Monaco. I was planning to keep it in case the twins took time to be named, but they have been named and born quite quickly.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Done! DrKiernan (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Aloha DrKiernan. First, congratulations (a little belated I know) on raising Charles I of England to Feature Article. I was the GA reviewer and think the article has improved so much there is no doubt it is FA.

I wonder if you might have some time for a collaboration on an article about one of the mebers of the Hawaiian Royal family to raise it to GA or A class and then on to FA. My last collaboration was with TParis on the article Ford Island, where we began from what I believe was a C class article. It was on the main page this past December 7th. If you would like, you could choose any subject that you feel inclined or, I was hoping you could help me with Charles Kanaina. It seems he is one of my ancestors and in my research on the subject, I discovered a lot of information. I have done a great deal to the article but recently felt that I needed to go over it again and trim off some and go into more detail in other parts and try to get to better understand the Hawaiian caste system or Aliʻi ranking. Since you are so familiar with articles on royalty, it is my hope that you can help guide me to a reasonable standard to use on other biographies of the royal family to also eventually get as many articles to FA as possible down the road. Would that interest you? Mahalo nui loa!--Mark Miller (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Aloha! Unfortunately, I know too little about the Hawaiian royals to contribute properly to this topic. However, I will take a look at this article later and get back to you with comments. All the best, DrKiernan (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks that would be much appreciated.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I've put my comments at Talk:Charles Kanaina/Comments. Good luck with the article! DrKiernan (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get back to you on this sooner. Been a bit tied up. Thank you so much for this! Very unexpected and I love the detailed list. I have begun working on that and will address each one.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James VI and I may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • be interpreted, in the context of seventeenth-century court life, as non-sexual,<ref>[[Alan Bray]] (2003} ''The Friend'', University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-07180-4, pp. 167–170<br/>Alan Bray (1994) "

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I won't revert, but "nominally" is overstated for the position as at 1800. It would be undoubtedly correct for the position up to 1782. But it doesn't reflect the short lived legislative independence of Grattan's parliament. I tried to think of wording which tried to convey "nominally for most of their respective histories" but couldn't think of anything that wasn't clumsy (or UNDUE since Grattan's parliament only lasted less than 20 years) so gave up! DeCausa (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

"Wedding and blessing dresses"? I thought you might be amused that to me this seems more like an exercise in pronouncing "e" in a certain way than a real sentence. Definite improvement. Britmax (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès

Would you take part in the Titles/styles discussion? You don't have to but the argument has gone on for days (There are 3 sections not including the compromise) and I'm on neither side. The argument is that Princess Gabriella has never officially held the title of Hereditary Princess although she legally held it by a 2002 law. The official birth announcement never mentioned the Hereditary Princess title. I find the whole thing confusing. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)