User talk:IP Address

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, IP Address, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  IZAK 10:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Spic" entry

I have replied to your comment on the entry's talk page.--Primetime 12:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just replied again.--Primetime 12:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• No. It is Wikipedia form. (See Nigger#Etymology.)--Primetime 13:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not going to stop reverting your edit. However, I can technically delete all of your additions if I wanted to because they are unsourced. (All of my sources are listed on the bottom of the entry.)--Primetime 22:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• No. The opposite is true. Please point to a policy page on Wikipedia where the format I am using is forbidden. Also note that I have changed the statement I just made above to be more precise.--Primetime 22:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm warning you. Either (1) seek out a mediator, (2) change your addition to something more acceptable, or (3) leave the article alone. You are violating the wikipedia:no personal attacks policy right now, so I am close to reporting you on the Administrator's Notice Board. Also note, again, that the only reason I kept any of your unsourced and irrelevant additions to my article is because I wanted you to go away. I'm quickly losing my patience.--Primetime 22:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both you and Primetime for 12 hours for violating WP:3RR. Please go and have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, and come back to this issue with a cool head. Please also read about our methods of dispute resolution - edit warring is not considered a good one. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

3 revert rule warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You have chosen sides by picking his version and protecting the page. It should be brought back to the version where it is being considered for deletion, because it has nothing to do with either one of us. You have also failed to make a similar scold to the other party, which convinces me that you are partisan and violating your abilities here on the Wikipedia. I don't like corruption. IP Address 23:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Before you all too flustered, note that a notice has been placed in the article to warn all editors of that page. If you have any concerns about my actions as an administrator, you can place a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. As for your statement about alleged corruption, you may need to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF IP Address 04:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Henery

Hi there, I've dropped you a note at Talk:Henry VIII of England. Check it out? :-) JackyR 19:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Monarch surnames

There is nothing wrong with mention additional names for Monarchs (most have multiple names), but the opening Bolded name needs to match the name of the article title. When a monarch has an additional surname, such as from the house of "Tudor", then it is written out in a sentence with an appropriate link to that sub-article. This is the explanation. If you have any questions, or are in disagreement with this, clear it up here first before entering into an edit war. If you disagree with these conventions, than you may change the conventions at Wikipedia:Manual of style. -- Stbalbach 00:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

important note

I'm surprised that this hasn't been pointed out to you yet, but your username of "IP Address" risks being unnecessarily confusing.

Since you've only been registered for about ten days, you haven't racked up too many edits with this name. I strongly suggest you change it to something else - this is relatively easy, but requires you to make a formal request. DS 15:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Warnings

When you wish to leave a message on the talk page of a vandal, consider using some of the standard warnings that are listed here, especially the {{test}}... series. We like to start with friendly warnigs with helpful links to first time vandals, and then move on to more serious warnings if they continue. NoSeptember ^talk 18:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bronze Race

I have removed your addition "See Spic." from the article Bronze race. If you would care to defend the addition, please do so on the article's talkpage.--Rockero 04:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Richmond Herald

Oops, I accidentally posted this on your user page first. Sorry. The reason that I reverted your edit was because the page you linked to mostly just restates what the article says. My reason for including the other link was to give a general idea of what the College of Arms is/does.--Evadb 06:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

Links must correspond to articles. Directories such as the CoA main page only serve to confuse the reader. Your choice would be best for the CoA article, not the Richmond Herald. Try Occam's Razor. IP Address 07:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the CoA page does correspond to the article. If you link to the "About" page, an uninformed user still has to figure out how Richmond Herald fits into everything. If someone with no heraldic knowledge visits this page, they won't know what's going on. If they visit the main CoA page, then they'll be able to get a broad overview of the situation.--Evadb 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

The page I linked to has all the info a casual observer would need to find out about the Richmond Herald. When one visits the link, they expect to directly find info on the Richmond Herald. They are not supposed to have to go digging throughout the entire website. You should know this. IP Address 07:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should, but I don't. When I find something new, I usually like to find the background information before going further. If the page that is linked restates the information from the article, I'm just going to dig my way back to the home page. If you would like to change the links on all of the offices of arms, you can, but I'm going to agree to disagree :) Have a good day and thanks for the amicable exchange.--Evadb 07:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

Sorry dude, but that's just the way the Wikipedia is set up. Either go with the flow, or find somewhere else to make your own world, with your own customs to follow. IP Address 07:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried to be nice, but there were definitely some "unnice" undertones to your last message. As a final point, I looked at Occam's Razor, and I think that it supports my view of things. The simplest thing is to put the main CoA page. It makes things more complicated to try and find the exact line that might be interesting to someone. Have a blessed day.--Evadb 08:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

I think your attitudes are that of intentional Naivety according to Ignoratio elenchi. I'm upset because this is more or less the second time within a couple of hours I've dealt with it. IP Address 08:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that link has to do with my editing. I can assure you that what appears to be intentional naivety is, in fact, unintentional ignorance. I do not mean to contradict you, I'm just letting you know what my interpretation is on the issue. Thanks and God Bless.--Evadb 08:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

I'm sorry if I gave you a hard time. That was not my intention. IP Address 08:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. No offense was taken, no harm done.--Evadb 12:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your rascism and dirty comments

Warning. This is a warning. Desist your disgusting behaviour or face the consequences. SqueakBox 14:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC),

Personal attacks

Any more personal attacks from you, and you will be blocked from editing. David | Talk 14:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning removal

Remove warnings from your talk page again and I'll block you and protect your talk page for the duration if necessary. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Block

Hello, you have been blocked for making personal attacks here and here at least. You are welcome to continue editing after the block expires on condition you refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

English Civil War

What sort of input are you looking for from me? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Ah. Well, basically, The Cousins' War says that the English Civil War, the American Revoultion and the US Civil War were continuing warfare between Roundheads and Cavaliers. He even tries to show how the people from England who were the Puritans moved to New England and the people from England who were the Cavaliers moved to Virginia, and kept the warfare going. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read Albion's Seed. The Cousins' War is an interesting concept, but I read it a long time ago so I don't remember it particularly freshly. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, remember that Kevin Phillips is a Republican operative. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your last question. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you inferring that the Republican politics are related to the analysis of materials and writing of history with certain biases, especially for Puritans and against "Papists"?

Not inferring, but implying. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Their descendants were the original Republicans, but the "Puritans" of New England are usually Roosevelt Democrats today. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Normandy and Lancaster

The Dukedoms you mention Peerage_of_England don't exist they are pure custom not law.Alci12 15:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

West of Bingley

Sorry that I do not have any information about Timothy West. There are lots of Wests running around, not all of whom are related, and I fear my interest is mostly pre-Jamestown. I can add it to my list of things to look up if you wish.

BTW, I notice that you seem to have made a bit of a combative splash in a short time. If you will permit me to recommend something, the Wikipedia experience is a lot more pleasant for everyone (and produces better articles faster) if one concentrates on being studiously polite, and tries very hard to stay well withing the rules. I have learned a lot even from people who frustrate me to hell and back -- and sometimes what I learned was that I was mistaken. I have found that the people who won't be influenced by politeness won't be influenced by threats or abuse either.

This is just a general suggestion. I have not bothered running down any of your controversies and render no opinion on them. Happy editing! Robert A.West (Talk) 17:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Be careful of www.tudorplace.com -- I made the mistake of relying on it and included several inaccuracies there that had to be corrected by other, more reliable sources. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No one should use Wikipedia as a a substitute for an academic source. On the other hand, I am trying to improve articles whenever I can, and Nature found Wikipedia's accuracy rate on objective fact about the same as the Brittanica's. Not too shabby for a batch of amateurs. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

My primary interest is historical, not so much geneaological. My father's family came from old Virginia and still held a residue of the plantation into my lifetime. The De la Warr connection is fairly certain, but my interest would remain even if it were proven false. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC) documenting the

Not committed? What I meant to convey is that the geneology of the peers is in Burke and Cokayne, and that the geneology of the family in the U.S. has not been my concern for Wikipedia purposes, since Wikipedia is not a geneological database. I will keep those URL's for future reference when I get out of the muck and mire of Democratic peace theory. That article may be about to see its fourth mediation and/or its second arbitration. I've been accused of being a sockpuppet, a communist tool and of being a monarchist. I have been accused of original research for claiming that Christianity and Islam both predict reigns of peace (actually, another editor inserted the claim, I merely sourced it) and that Washington was unopposed for President (another editor inserted and sourced the claim, while I merely defended it.) It could probably be a case study in how not to edit an article, and is an incredible time sink. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Royal Arms

Just because you're descended from a person, X, who bears arms doesn't mean you have a right to those arms. The rules work roughly as follows: if your father bore arms, you may bear his arms. If your mother is a heiress (that is, her father has no sons, or his sons and all their descendants are dead), you may quarter her arms with your father's. Does that clarify things? Choess 15:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not so much in heraldry, unless there's a paternal line to tie into. Marrying a heiress could be very important business in medieval times, of course. Choess 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Duke of Aubigny

Yes, we have articles on the Jacobite peerages, but they aren't mentioned in the articles on real peerages as if they are just as valid. The Aubigny title isn't used by the Dukes of Richmond and Gordon and isn't recognised by any government, and using it as if it is is highly misleading. (And you completely missed the point about the person with the most dukedoms — it's only counting British ones (hence "in the Realm").) Oh, and calling my edits "vandalism" isn't likely to get a polite response from me. Proteus (Talk) 09:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If a title's dodgy, it should be mentioned as a footnote, not mentioned as if real with a footnote as to its dodginess. Proteus (Talk) 09:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My God, you're paranoid. Am I not allowed to leave the computer for half an hour without being accused of conspiring against you? Proteus (Talk) 10:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Marsden and Coulter

Hi IP Address (cool name, btw). I've been thinking all day about your earlier edit to Marsden and have put some concerns about the Marsden-Coulter comparison at Talk:Rachel Marsden. I'd like to hear your thoughts so that we can improve the article. Best, Bucketsofg 23:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You are the second editor to like my user name. I thought it neat first off, but it perhaps should have been a better one (lowercase a instead). IP Address 00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Norse-Gaels

You might want to reread WP:POINT before proceeding. Some material on Norse-Gaels in *north-west* (west of the Pennines, north of Mersey) England would not go amiss in the article, which could do with being broadly expanded. Quakers, Albion's Seed and Richmondshire, however, seem entirely out of place in the article, however you dress them up. Further, the idea that the Danelaw was full of Danes, and without Norse, seems a bit farfetched. It would be just as easy to assume that a Thorfinn crossed the North Sea as went the long way round. And even then, not all Norse in the Irish Sea zone were Norse-Gaels (nor, as the article currently suggests, were they necessarily Gaelicised Norse). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't question the fact that DHF is a historian, or that Albion's Seed is, in some respects, a reliable source. But I do question his and its relevance to the article. And I also question the relevance of a history of Quakerism. I further question the emphasis on Richmondshire, when Cumbria, the Wirral and north Lancashire are usually identified as the core areas of Norse-Gael settlement. Above all, I don't see the point of reverting the article backwards and forwards ad nauseam with entirely predictable results. It seems to me that the additional material is simply not relevant as-is to an article on Norse-Gaels, which is not to say that the article before the additions was complete or balanced. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Richmondshire used to envelop the whole of North West England, minus those lands once part of Cheshire and which were part of Scotland. Read the sources provided on the Richmondshire article page. Just because modern and devolved Richmondshire does not include the greater area of Norse settlement as in the olden days, does not mean Richmondshire was not the focal point of power in the North which was just as Norse as Cumbria. The misperception here is that simply because Richmondshire is now a mere district of Yorkshire, that it had always been a meek part of Danish Vikings in the first place. I wonder how this means nothing to a continual community, or that Richmond was wholly a Lancastrian subsidiary in mutual conflict with the Yorkists. Feudal titles and lands meant more than just words and names; they were de facto and de jure relationships between people. I do not dismiss Danish colonisation of Richmondshire, but the upland fells of the dales sure as hell did not appeal to the Danes as they did to the Norwegians. Also, what was Eric Bloodaxe doing in Stainmore as a Norwegian ruler of the supposedly Danish Jorvik? Look deeper than the average reader. You ever do any research on the Neville family? The Lancastrian part of their family ruled Westmorland (where Stainmore is), but they also had estates in Richmondshire and nowhere else in Yorkshire. That is because of the interlocking forces of the Middle Ages. Everybody was provincial. Richmond was not fully assimilated into Yorkshire itself until after the Wars of the Roses, with the Tudor compromise being represented by their estate in Richmond. In any case, Richmondshire is very much like that. Richmondshire is not totally Danish or Norwegian in discussion of pre-1066 or the commons of the shire tracing their descent and relationships with one another to the Victorian era. These things are just as provincially ingrained in the people as places in France being Frankish, Norman, Flemish, Breton, Burgundian and etc. It lasts through history, so try to understand. IP Address 00:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Talk:Norse-Gaels

I wish I had tag team partners to push my agendas, then I could be as cool as you! How quaint that the admin was another "Celt" arraying his offences against an Englishman. I feel honoured to have so much attention. If you hate the English, then screw your racist selves. IP Address 23:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody likes maps such as these: [1] I guess that means I'll have to sulk in the corner with the knowledge that they are wrong. I suppose that a Norwegian network of York-Man-Dublin never existed and that these: [2],[3] ,[4],[5],[6] are severe errors. Mainstream sources being cited does no good, so let the oligarchy have its wanking way with the Wikipedia. IP Address 00:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Kessler ones are seriously made-up history, and should not be trusted without corroboration. The map, or so it seems to me, makes my point the Norse-Gael settlement. Or that's how I read it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Kessler is not the only website that puts forth those perceptions of events; there are many--but since you disagree automatically with Kessler's take on it you will not agree with the others. In any case, have you read the book by John Haywood that I have here in my hands? Penguin is a great and respected publisher, but so is Oxford and I don't appreciate eccentrics downing them with possible excuses about arguments from authority being a logical fallacy. I respect and trust both Penguin and Oxford University. I will never place any Wikipedians' quaintnesses at any degree higher than either source. I also have another source: The Penguin Atlas of Medieval History. Fight against these big publishers all you want, but you will only make the subject more obscure via Wikipedia. Down with the Wikipedia's wanton anti-establishment nonsense! IP Address 00:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Angus is unlikely to be impressed with the The Penguin Atlas of Vikings (or Medieval History), never mind bog-standard websites. Penguin produces a lot of trash; Oxford too isn't always perfect, just check out the etymologies on the OED and pull out any recent article on the same topic. At any rate, there is no conspiracy against you. However, the material you inserted is regarded as irrelevant; no-one cares about excluding the Norse-Gaels from England, and I myself suggested it'd be more appropriate to treat Cumberland (with Westmoreland of course). Calling people "thugs", "biggots", "dicks", and other such profanities is also unlikely get many people on your side, and neither are so many blanket reverts likely to help you. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think as you do. Wikipedia pwns all other sources and is the most reliable, the objectives of each editor being chaste and pure. Your actions are profane, with such telling silences on issues you cannot refute. You only fight that which seems easy to and ignore the other info thrown your way. So I guess that means you think bluejays are red, because your big self says it is so? Your predilection for seeing only what you want to see and only hearing what you want to hear is the treal problem. You can't be bothered with trully learning anything, especially when it is something that would make you look stupid by comparison. That is essentially the Egotistical Wikipedian's problem, which you are content with supporting. They were not all blanket reverts; you did not dispute the details on added evidence supporting the issue addressed. All you want to do is say that I'm the elephant in the room, pushing aside a chance to learn.

I bet you lot distrust every bit of these too, but there are no flawless websites on any given subject and you had best be prepared to examine your own edits for errors: [7], [8]. If you were truly knowledgeable on the story of Richmondshire, you would know that it's history has never faced the North Sea and not the stereotypical eastwards idea. Almost all times in history and colonisation, Richmondshire has had a western focus in England--to the Irish Sea or to Scotland or to Brittany. Never once elsewhere, while Norway is West Norse in language and culture anyways. You really don't know what you're having a lack of info to talk about. Give a counter-argument. Oh, but you haven't. You've just made personal attacks and never had contrary evidence to display against anything I've put forth. This means you are taking positions without knowing the subject, but they are all contrarian anyways. That is not the mark of intelligence, but blame the one who has researched the issue by consorting so many resources. Yet, you refuse them all and don't offer an explanation why. "It looks out of place..." That's a surefire way to get any historian to agree with your arbitrary attitudes. You don't give a fuck about the subject anyways, except to attack the hard work of others you know not how to do yourselves. That ain't my problem. I have always enjoyed going to educational institutions and staying after class to finger through all the pages of any geopolitical-based resources I could--about the Western world, of course. I'm a teacher's pet. What info have you in regards to the article, but character assessments about my person? IP Address 00:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Seems fine to me. I made a slight edit, more in way of cutting out some unnecessary phrasing (it's always easier to copyedit someone else's writing that to do it to your own ...). I don't think I changed the sense of things, but you'd be better to reread it just to be sure.

I have not checked Kessler's Viking material. For all I know it may be accurate and orthodox, but the site contains a great deal of misinformation, and I really wouldn't rely on it, even for well documented periods, without corroboration. If you see it referenced on WP, or included in External links, I think it is a good idea to be very suspicious of the article in question. That doesn't mean that websites aren't valuable resources. The Jorvik Trust one is excellent, British Archaeology is handy, and I'd be completely lost without the CELT site. (You may be interested in Ó Corráin's lecture at CELT on the Vikings, there's a pdf somewhere as well. It raises more questions than it answers.) Hope this helps. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Stifle (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello

The picture on my userpage I found a quite awhile ago on Wikipedia commons I believe. It is the Joshua Tree National Park. Thanks. --Dakota ~ 07:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a rather large image [9] suitable for large screen monitors. I think it enlarges well. This one is lovely also [10] There are several beautiful ones in the Joshua Tree National Park gallery also.--Dakota ~ 07:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Norse-Gaels

I was reverting you because your contribution was of poor quality, and not relevant. It is also of little purpose talking to you because you are vicious and uncouth; your mode of argument is personal attack, and you continually froth forward conspiracy theories, accompanied by the usual obscenities and ad hominem attacks, to explain why so many people revert your substandard edits. I'm still not sure if you are a serious contributor, or if you are someone else just trying to amuse yourself by creating disruption. If you aspire to be the former, and if you wanna get on better, I'd suggest you get your act together and behave like an adult (even if you aren't one in real life). - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Richmond Herald...Again...

Hey, I notice that Richmond Herald is still the only English herald with a more specific external link. If you want to keep that one as it is, I'd think that it would be necessary to change the other 12 heralds in ordinary, at least, so that they are all the same. It makes little sense to me to have one that points to a different page than all the others.--Evadb 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

Readers are to be guided to the direct link which has to do with Wikipedia articles. That other articles have not had their external links standardised means, that they are in error. IP Address 08:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd still say that the College of Arms has EVERYTHING to do with Richmond Herald. I'm not quite sure how the "standard" can be the one article that's different.--Evadb 08:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I do. I don't understand why you want the external link to be a page that contains almost exactly the same information as the article. What does that achieve?--Evadb 08:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

What would be a lot more helpful, is to avoid plagiarism and find a multitude of sources which vary and enrich the language used to discuss the article. The more info the merrier, specifically about Richmond Herald--not the College of Arms--which is a webpage already reference in the College of Arms article. IP Address 08:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

More sources would be great. Maybe you should get to work and try to find some.--Evadb 08:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Wrote:

There is absolutely no point in double-referencing. That only clutters the article. It is plainly apparent, that you refuse to consider the fact that you may have to do work to clean up your own mess. Now, you wish to spread more of that mess around as a "standard". Don't pretend you weren't editing the article earlier under your own IP address, to hide your activities and subvert a WP:3RR. You know what you were doing and trying to get your way--the wrong way! Don't game the system! IP Address 08:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you always get so snippy whenever this issue comes up. Perhaps you need to grow up a bit. I'm not trying to be mean or difficult. I tried to come up with a viable compromise, and all you can do is accuse me of trying to subvert the system. Thanks for cluing my in on what a WP:3RR is. I had not ever heard of that before. Using my IP address is not a conscious decision. There are times when I don't take the extra minute to log in. I'm fairly sure that this is no violation of wikipedia policy. I'm also unsure as to how your desire to change things amounts to MY mess to cleanup. If you don't have anything constructive to say to me, you ought to just not say anything at all.--Evadb 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

Maybe you really are a child, with no knowledge of right and wrong? If so, then I should pity instead of raise my voice. IP Address 08:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir, such an end to this affair would be most welcome. You can think whatever you want about me. If that helps prevent you from making unintelligent comments on my Talk Page, then I am much better off. Have a blessed day, and feel free to leave me alone.--Evadb 08:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

How can you be so two-faced like this? You brought it onto yourself, by thinking you could hide your actions! I do not believe that you have a self esteem big enough to accept when you've made a mistake. That's kind of dangerous, don't you think? No, you can't fool me. IP Address 08:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to how I'm being two-faced. If I brought anything on myself by trying to reach a compromise on this uresolved issue of yours, then I guess I'll have to accept the consequences. I can assure you that I have made many mistakes in my life, and have taken full responsibility for them. If you can explain to me what mistake I've made to offend you, please do. But also, please take the advice from your own Talkpage and be nice.--Evadb 09:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

You've failed to learn from the last time; still making snide remarks and pretending to not know what is discussed. You have everything to know, from what is already written here in this section of your discussion page. It's free advice, but you're quite headstrong. IP Address 09:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OK...You're really starting to try my patience. Every effort on my part to reach some sort of understanding is followed by accusations and name-calling on your part. Once and for all: I did not purposely write any snide remarks, I've not tried to play dumb, and this is all a genuine effort to make wikipedia a better place. If you can tell me what I've done to offend you, I'd be glad to hear it, but until then, please only present constructive criticism to me here. Thanks and have a blessed day.--Evadb 09:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

It's not my fault that you refuse to pay attention. I will not repeat myself again. Don't play charades and feign innocence. Grow up. We all make mistakes--even you. IP Address 09:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a fact to which I've already agreed. Let me make one last plea: "Leave me alone, unless you have some form of constructive criticism for me." --Evadb 09:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

You're the one who says he doesn't want to be bothered, but keeps coming back for more. This is clearly a game you enjoy. I'm telling you straight up, that you have to make amends on this "standard" you've invented, because it has no place in the Wikipedia's already established standards. You can't make the Wikipedia bend to your will--that includes those like me who patrol the articles for vandalism, trollery and even badly formatted articles. They all need to be fixed, in order to be appropriate for the Wikipedia and not a hinderance for our readers. IP Address 09:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that I invented no standard. This is the way ALL of the English officer of arms pages look. When one person changes one of these pages to conform to what he thinks is correct, it makes me wonder why none of the others have been changed. I'm not trying to make wikipedia bend to me will. I'm not the one that changed ONE page to make it a different formst than all the rest. Now please leave me alone.--Evadb 09:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

If you want me to leave you alone, you have to stop Playing God with the Wikipedia. You edited all of these armorial articles to fit your concept of a standard, in your own mind's eye. IP Address 09:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not play God with wikipedia. Perhaps you miss the point of the whole thing. Wikipedia is something that is constantly changing. If I edited something in a way that you don't like, you ought to change it. I'm not playing god with anything. Now leave me alonr.--Evadb 09:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

You still don't understand how to stop an uncomfortable conversation. Own up to your mistakes and misdeeds and/or commit yourself to silence and reflect on what has occurred. You pursued this article in a way as to continue the issue, so it hardly seems like your issues will go away again in one months' time. If I (or others) don't go about fixing all your mistakes, you will conclude that there is nothing wrong. I've already told you that what you've done is wrong, but you pretend you haven't read my words and ask for further explanation. You just avoid facing facts. IP Address 09:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly the most obstinate person that I've met in a LONG time. I'm unsure of what else you want from me. I've read your words, and understand that you think I'm wrong. If there is nothing else that you need, please leave me along.--Evadb 09:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

If we cross paths again and it is because of your obstinance, then I will most certainly involve myself for the sake of the Wikipedia. Now if you don't want me to reply, send no reply for me to reply to. IP Address 09:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Day.--Evadb 09:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks warning

Your comments on Evadb's talkpage User_talk:Evadb include a series of unnecessary personal attacks today; e.g. "Don't pretend you weren't editing the article earlier under your own IP address, to hide your activities" and "Maybe you really are a child, with no knowledge of right and wrong? If so, then I should pity instead of raise my voice" and "How can you be so two-faced like this?" and "Don't play charades and feign innocence. Grow up." I suggest that you apologise to her on her talkpage. It was a condition of your editing after your block of 30 March 2006, above, that you refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. Chelseaboy 17:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming royal arms...

Greetings again. Hoping that we can have an intelligent exchange, I wanted to take up the questions that you posed on my talk page. You wrote:

If one is descended from legitimate royal lines, does that entitle them to use a defaced version of the royal arms without penalty? Does it really matter if the dynasty is no longer around to contest another's usage of the arms? For instance, my ancestors through several female lines have been hereditary rulers of all the UK composite countries--just not all at once, of course. I know for certain that my ancestors used Capetian lilies, Richard the Lionheart's three leopards, William the Lion's lion rampant and more. But there is the point of the Irish harp, when I know the Celtic Irish monarchs did not use arms. Could I therefore, fashion my own versions? I really don't need permission from the College of Arms, or do I when concerning other nations such as France? What about Crusader states and defunct countries or monarchies? That would make myself independent of armorial jurisdiction in respect of those entities, correct? IP Address 10:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I can really only answer with any certainty on the British heraldic aspect of your question. As a descendant through the female line of royalty, you would not be entitled to use any of these arms. If, however, you can prove that you are a male-line descendant of these armigers, then you ought to be able to use the arms. Technically, the College of Arms would have to have your pedigree on record in order to establish a right to the arms. The Court of Chivalry has only sat once in the last 300 or so years, though, so I don't know how much dnager of legal repercussions there is for using them without authority. Concerning nations such as France and the Crusader states, I'd say that you ought to go with the same basic plan. If the line descends through females, you probably have no right to the arms. If you can prove male-line descent, then you ought to be able to use them...though you should have the genealogical proofs ready should someone accuse you of being a crackpot.--Evadb 10:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

Thank you for this belated reply. I don't see how I could possibly find anything in the direct male line; it's all through marital alliances. I think that when certain countries or aristocracies don't exist anymore, there aren't restrictions for marrying lesser families of property--the landed gentry, for instance. Overall, this type of thing has more sentimental value, than a real one...doesn't it? IP Address 10:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hope we have now buried the hatchet. Like I said, I'm not sure of how descent of arms works on the continent. I would be wary of including quarterings of France in your arms though. If you're American, there is nothing legally wrong with it, but you will get some odd looks from many in the heraldic world if you try it.--Evadb 10:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

Let's hope. What about using the Plantagent arms (defaced, of course), because I am descended from them (by heiresses) and George III abolished their statuatory (official) usage? Does the problem of using the French arms, stem from Canada's own royal arms? Is there anything against using civic arms, which have had ducal or other quasi-national peerage titles attached to them in the past? For instance, could I use a form of arms for the Duchies of Lancaster/Brittany/Normandy/Aquitaine etc--if I prove descent? Nobody can "copyright" or "patent" defunct titles and/or arms, correct? Isn't this kind of a community property, in the public domain? There are enough widespread descendents to make it so, which is why I find it hard to see such things put on a restricted list. In point of fact, I would not claim to own the specific arms quartered (France or England, etc.) but merely just own my specific design of arms (a creative spin-using correct armorial practices, of course). That is considered reasonable, right? What about long gaps of various ancestors who did not own or bear arms (but have biological descent)--is that the chief bar to using arms in the first place? Of course, none of this matters if I don't make any legal claims in such matter...right? There are only repercussions for those who assume somebody else's arms and perpetuate fraudulence, correct? IP Address 11:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone can copyright defunct titles. If you are in someplace that's subject to the law of arms of Scotland or England, then I think you're out of luck. The idea as I understand it is that all arms come from the crown as Fons Honorum. When the line of that honor ends, the honor is in abeyance and reverts back to the crown. From what I understand, they'd be very unlikely to re-grant arms based on a descent that you mention can be claimed by millions (aren't most British folk descended from Edward III in some form or another?). If places without an armorial authority, I think you're right in saying that any arms you like can be adopted provided they are not used to defraud. Even if you want to adopt the undifferenced Plantagenet Arms, there is no legal reason why you cannot. The only guide in that case would be good taste and heraldic conventions.--Evadb 11:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

Your knowledge in the matter of heraldry is very helpful. Just one last questionable issue: My mother's family comes from a divergent line of Anglo-Irish baronets who lived in Ulster (the Protestant Ascendancy). My mother's father's line does not descend from the title-holders, but are parallel descendents of a mutual ancestor shared between them (a younger son)--before the title was granted and when more or less the whole family was living back in Bristol. The grant of baronet was made in Stuart England and my ancestors on this side went to the American colonies. There is now an abeyance for claims to become the next baronet for inheritance. Could my American relatives (of the same surname) successfully petition for at least recognition of their rightful connexions? Would the default be a recognition of property, or title? I know Americans aren't supposed to bear titles, but there are several Americans with a knighthood and this is obviously not a peerage-related issue. IP Address 11:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Genealogies get a bit fuzzy when I try to picture them in my head, but if you can prove that your American relatives are the rightful heirs of this Baronetcy, I think the place to start would be the College of Arms or the Court of the Lord Lyon King of Arms. If they have your genealogies on record, then everything would be squared away. The Constitution of the US bars public officials from accepting honors from foreign states. It certainly does not bar American citizens from reclaiming titles (be they noble or otherwise) that are legally theirs in another country. Have a wonderful day.--Evadb 11:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

Ah, the distinction is between diplomatic bribery and the inheritance of family estates/titles/honours. Thank you very much. I see that Wikipedia (and the general public) can gain very much from you, at least in regards to heraldry. IP Address 11:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally...You're beginning to understand how GREAT I am. :) --Evadb 11:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Monument to the Royal Stuarts

Care to putt about in this article? IP Address 11:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you on about? Roydosan 12:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No personal problem...

You Wrote:

There you go again, refusing to heed that advice. I should have told you, that attempts to charm and flatter me will not "buy me off". It is obviously lost upon you, this cause of formatting appropriately per wiki-standards. You've got three strikes and so, you're out. No more will I be patiently lenient with you. You think that just because you join some elite group like the CVU, that anything you do will be safe and others will be your apologists when you are in trouble. I suggest you back off now, before more damage is done. Just because you are a "teacher", doesn't mean that everything you do is right--or you know everything. I see you've met User:Mel Etitis. IP Address 09:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not the only person who is disregarding the advice of others. I'm also quite sure that I've never attempted to flatter or charm you. I have no personal malice toward you, and I can't understand why you hate me so much. The rest of your message to me is laughable, but I seriously don't understand what my disagreement with User:Mel Etitis has to do with anything.--Evadb 10:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You Wrote:

Keep flouting wiki-conventions. I'm sure it will get you somewhere. IP Address 10:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my simple statements of bewilderment.--Evadb 10:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kandern

I'm not sure why you made the revert on Kandern, but on the surface it looks like it is only because you dislike me. Can you keep your problems with me confined to the Richmond Herald article that started it all, please?--Evadb 10:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism.

I'm not sure what you think vandalism, but repeated good-faith edits certainly are not it. Please stop labeling my edits as vandalism and accept the fact that I'm doing what I think is right. Thanks.--Eva ^db 17:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you stop calling my edits vandalism when they clearly aren't. I refer you HERE, where it states unequivocall that stubborness is not the same as vandalism. Have a great day.--Eva ^db 10:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

I'm happy to see that you've now upgraded me to linkspam vandal. May I ask what the occasion for such a promotion is? Have I offended you further. If I have, I offer my sincere apologies for that as well as for any other wrongs I've committed.--Eva ^db 11:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

One More Question...

Hi again, IP. Your last revert on Richmond Herald included an edit summary that said rv linkspam vandal; false responses always prompted. Ignoring the fact that you continue to call my edits vandalism (which they clearly are not), I was wondering what the second half of your summary means. Be well...--Eva ^db 09:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Trolling?

I assure you that I am not trolling. Why can you not be sensible and discuss this issue instead of inciting an edit war with me.--Eva ^db 05:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just Because

You Wrote:

Just because you have lots of good info about heraldry, does not excuse and permit your persistent formatting vandalism. Using the same link for every article related in some way to the College of Arms, does not help and in no way describes further what Wikipedia readers are looking for. Wikipedia's readers are looking for specific information, not some goose chase. You have been told this time and again, yet ask again and again for why I revert your obvious lack of care. If you cared to follow Wikipedia's style rather than your own obscure reasonings, then we could come to some reckoning. If you revert my edit one more time, then I will have to take that as a further declaration of hostility and self interest in the Wikipedia community. I will not fix your other edits, on other articles. I leave that up for you to fix. I have enough experience with your edits to know that you will disregard this, then feign surprise at my edits. You will repeat this game for so long as you edit. It's a common sign of trolls here. I will defend this article forever more, in the case that it may be subjected to spam or any other vandalism. Do not like that? Tough. IP Address 06:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for you to understand that others (ie ME) can have a different idea of what is good for wikipedia. Just because I see things differently does not make me a vandal or a troll. If you can point me to the section of the manual of style that says, "It's best for external links to point to pages with exactly the same information as the article," then I'll gladly concede to consensus. As it stands, though, I understand Wikipedia as an effort to make the sum of human knowledge available to the world for free. That means providing links to relevant information...not the SAME information. Also, I'm not sure what other edits of mine your referring to when you say that you won't fix them. Perhaps you do completely miss the point of wikipedia. When you see something that can be improved, you should do it. If you can see an edit that I've made that was bad, let me know and I can improve it. It seems to me that you have some preconceived notion that I'm an evil person and that is causing you to edit just to get a rise out of me. I can assure you that I am just trying to do things as I understand they should be done. I'm not trying to subvert wikipedia, make you mad, spam pages, be a troll, or make hostile motions in your directions. Please understand that I'm doing my best in good faith.--Eva ^db 07:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why

Why do continue to avoid discussion with me, and then get mad when I do things that you don't like.--Eva ^db 07:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Yes, I'm manic-depressive. That's why my mood changes when I want it to. I treated you decent when you acted decent; when you returned to old form and broke trust...then I let it be known that I wasn't going to put up with it anymore. You've had so many chances, preferring to blow it all. You've asked me time and again. I gave you answers. You ignored the fact that you brought up requests for discussion, so you discussed nothing but the same drivel and missing the point--over and over again. I'm sorry, but you've pushed my patience beyond normal limits. Thickheaded? See my User discussion page; look at the userbox trifecta and what it means. Eva, don't you dare bother me again! IP Address 20:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I think you've made a mistake by commenting on my talk page when it was intended for someone else. Based on the content of the comment, it doesn't seem very nice, so I would suggest you remove from mine, as a friendly mistake, and not put it on theirs, as a friendly courtesy. Thanks, Chuck 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's up to you, but don't bet on me taking to kindly the badgering she gives me and with which words she does so. But, you fancy yourself valiant and lacking objective? Let her handle this herself. She's a big girl. IP Address 03:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I am not objective in this situation, as is why I requested the intervention of administrator, for which I am not. As to what you call her 'badgering', I have seen at least equal comments back from you. I would like to think of myself as Valiant, but I doubt it this time. I saw something happening that wasn't good, so I did something, and I'm sorry to end your little revert war and petty bickering. Thanks you again for your message, Chuck^(척뉴넘) 05:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some advice...

Greetings again. Someone left this advice on my user talk page, and I thought that I'd send it your way, as well:

Hi, I saw your alert on the Esperanza page and was asked by Chuch to take a look at it, so I just did. I'm not sure if either of you has asked the help of an outside party before, this looks like it has gone on for way too long! To me it seems like you both have the interests of Wikipedia at heart, and for both of you your patience has been tried for too long, hence the uncivility and 'name calling' that occured from both sides (it's never a good idea to call edits by a fellow editor 'vandalism' if he's not a vandal). I'm sorry that it has caused you so much stress!

Regarding the content of the dispute, I think that you both have different views of the way external links are supposed to add something to Wikipedia. That seems to be a problem for many editors, so much that there is new policy under development to deal with this. It is just proposed policy right now, but you might want to read it and join in the dicsussion there: Wikipedia:External links/External links policy. The current style guide is a bit ambigious about the kind of links that this dispute is about, but my reasoning is usually this: It says at point 5: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article. (bolding mine) Therefore, links should be links that go into more detail, not a general page about a more general topic. I understand you want to make things easier for the reader who wants to learn more about the topic, but perhaps you could consider creating something like a portal (I don't know if there already is something like it, just a suggestion).

In the mean time, I'd want to ask you to refrain from reverting edits like these over and over again. Let's try to sort this out first. --JoanneB 15:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for calling your edits vandalism. I've gotten very frustrated by your continued references to my edits as such and it boiled over a bit. I'm still quite hopeful that we can return to an amicable exchange such as we've had before.--Eva ^db 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal Proposal...

After your support of the idea, I figured I couldn't NOT propose a heraldry portal. So I've done so. If you think that such a thing would be helpful, you can voice your support HERE and hopefully we can get the heraldry category items organized better.--Eva ^db 11:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Geneaology

I'm sorry, I am not a genealogist - I have no idea how you would calculate how many people in England are descended from a particular king, but I would not be surprised if a significant number of people have royal ancestors somewhere in their family tree - the population was just not very large 500 years ago.

Incidentally, while I am here - I have only recently noticed the slow-burning edit/revert war and rather heated exchanges regarding the external links on Richmond Herald. I am not sure why this particular Herald should trigger so much heat but so little light, compared to the other members of the College of Arms. Let me just say that I hope you and Evadb work out an amicable solution. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Edward IV and Henry VII

Considering just about every hereditary peer can trace a decent to William, tracing it to many other monarchs between then and the present is usually quite easy. Longstanding families have multiple links to different monarchs as they married into such limited circles. As this has changed in more recent times it's pretty easy to find someone in any family line thats related to someone who can trace a line back to any number of monarchs.

Welsh lines are very difficult as are early Scottish due to a lack of paperwork in terms of births marriages and deaths.

Crusaders is merely a collective term for, in the main, those nationals of various countries who went on the crusade. They would consequently have thought of themselevs as being from where ever they came from - they didn't cease to be of original nationality (such as nationality existed in this period which is doubtful usually it was regional or local).Alci12 13:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well even excluding collaterals the further you go back, due to the number of people, you are likely to be able to find decent from a peer or noble who in turn is a decendant of a monarch. This is true of most monarchs though of course the fecundity of some, like Charles II makes him one of the most common.Alci12

Dear IP Address, I see from your contributions that you seem to have added this message about "gene pools" and medieval English monarchs to the talk pages of many contributors. What exactly are you trying to achieve? Paul B 14:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Descent from Edward IV or Henry VII doesn't necessarily carry much social status with it nowadays. As Alci12 pointed out, the pool into which peers and children of peers intermarry has grown much larger since the Middle Ages, and it's easy for the descendants of daughters or younger sons to drop off dramatically in circumstances. (For instance, the present Earl of Leicester is a schoolteacher of modest means, who inherited through the death of a rather distant cousin; his heir presumptive is a retired grocery clerk in California.) As far as the dispersion of their issue into the broader gene pool goes, Henry VII is relatively easy to explain: the Tudors ("Tudor" is a relict of the patronymic "ap [son of] Tudur", BTW) simply weren't very fertile. The issue of Henry VII, other than his Tudor children and grandchildren, were the Stuarts (post James-V, and also Lord Darnley) and the descendants of the Duke of Suffolk (the Seymours and the Stanleys). It's quite a limited pool. For all his children, Edward IV wasn't very fertile in the long term, either: Elizabeth married Henry VII and shares the fate of the Tudors, none of Cecily's children survived her, nor Anne's, leaving only Catherine's descendants, the Courtenays, as a viable line. Their descendants seems to have married well enough over the next few generations to remain respectable gentry, and not do anything as desperate as go off to America to try and make a living.

I suspect you mean the Earl of Essex, not the Earl of Leicester. Proteus (Talk) 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been a very well-developed concept of "nationality" in the Crusader States. One of the last Ladies of Beirut married Nicholas l'Aleman (Nicholas the German), the (Fourth) Crusade-state of Achaea was a model of French chivalry and the French language, etc. The native baronial party that opposed Guy de Lusignan and his Poitevins are sometimes referred to as "Poulains," but I don't know if they self-identified as such or whether it was just a term of contempt. Choess 03:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Edward III had seven sons; they married the other English nobility; English nobility has always been been willing to marry wealthy and distinguished people without titles, and so on down. It has been estimated that a third of the population of England is descended from him; not all of them can prove it, of course. The proportion of Anglo-Americans so descended *may* be slightly less; the colonists were no more than gentry.
  • Edward III was not, of course, Protestant; but if you included his ancestors, and all the ruling houses of Northern Europe, it may well be that most Americans are descended from them.
• For a man with ten legitimate children, Edward IV had very few grandchildren, and most of them were watched carefully by Henry VII and Henry VIII, who were his son-in-law and senior grandson. Several of them wound up in the Tower; few have descendants now living.
• Similarly, Henry VII had very few great-grandchildren: I believe only James I, Lady Arabella Stuart, Lady Jane Grey and her sisters, and Lady Margaret Clifford (excluding deaths in infancy). These ladies were discouraged from marrying; most died childless.
• And the Stuarts themselves died out. The bulk of the descendants of Edward IV and Henry VII, therefore, are probably the descendants of Elizabeth of Bohemia. By her time, the custom that royalty marries royalty was fully established. Her descendants, therefore, for several generations are royalty, and mostly outside England. By now there are books full of them, and some of them are definitely middle class; but few of them have come to America.

Almost all of this you could have found out by reading WP articles. Please do next time. This is not a genealogy chat-room

Regards, Septentrionalis 17:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Lengthy questions

BTW, stuff like this should really go to some place like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities; posting it to multiple user and article-space talk pages is somewhat disruptive. Choess 05:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I must concur; this is strongly opposed, and could, if continued, get you blocked. Septentrionalis 16:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Heraldry Portal?

Hey. I've proposed the creation of an heraldic portal. If you think that such a thing would be helpful, you can voice your support HERE and hopefully we can get the heraldry category items organized better. Thanks for all your hard work on heraldic topics.--Eva ^db 08:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Great Edits

Love your edits - keep up the good work. 155.84.57.253 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish royalty

Now this is an interesting question, and one WP may not have an answer to. This is largely because much of the answer is "It depends" and "We don't know".

• Almost all (European) royal descents, if traced back far enough, will lead to medieval Catholic kings.
• It is probable that most people with any European blood are descended from Charlemagne; again, the documents to prove it often haven't survived.
• In the Irish case, there are two questions of definition:
  • What do you mean by Irish?
    • Are you including the Protestant Ascendancy? They were mostly English by blood, and presumably have the usual proportion of descents from Edward III. And they married each other, so one royal link spread into many families.
    • Are you including the Anglo-Irish, the Fitzgeralds, Burkes, and so forth; many of them were also descended from English (or Scottish) kings. Again, they married each other.
    • Many of the "mere Irishry" are of course descended in part from one or the other of these.
  • What do you mean by Kings?
    • Every Irish tribe had a King; some of these made themselves Kings of their Quarter; some High Kings of Ireland. Almost all the Irish claim to be descended from one of these; most are probably right. (And many of them also married wives descended from Kings of Ireland or Scotland.) The Tudors made most of these dynasties into Earls, like the Earl of Tyrone; but their descendants are still around.
    • There were Norse Kings of Dublin and other parts of Ireland. Do they count? (And in many cases we do not know who their descendants were.) Septentrionalis 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

List of synagogues

Hi IP Address. I found your note very confusing. Why would you describe me as a "Zionist", and why would a "Zionist" be interested in a List of synagogues anyway? Furthermore, why would a List of synagogues impress antisemites? I personally don't think Lists like that are very useful, and prefer to work with the existing categories. If it is of any help, I have created two small articles on synagogues, B'nai Yosef Synagogue and Baith Israel-Anshei Emeth Synagogue, and I plan to expand them as time permits. Looking forward to your response. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Eva ^db has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

descendants of british kings in social terms

You were asking about social class of royal descendants. Well, I believe that a bit contrary to your belief, even these later monarchs have (even legitimate) descendants of low social level - you may wish to consult descendant lists provided by genealogics. The Havoverians were big upon "ebenbuertigkeit", and that shows in their legitimate descent. Sophia of Hanover's [11] illegitimate and morganatic descendants include a plentitude of commoners already in 18th and 19th centuries. Almost all legitimates however managed to keep themselves non-commoners until 20th century - lowest of them seem to be barons, sirs, etc. But in 20th century, quite rapidly, much of the issue of daughters and also some cases younger sons did not carry any title and seem quite commoners. But Hanoverian descendants are a special lot, an exception to common patterns as the ebembuertigkeit kept their legitimates for two centuries from mingling with commoner stock. Also, note that much or most of them are in Germany, not in Britain (had Hanoverians married their daughters to british magnates in style of Edward I instead of marrying them to german magnates, the outcome would have been much different re social strata). Thus, there are not many non-royal british decendants of Hanoverians until the extended royal family in 20th century started to marry in britain...

The descent pattern in British isles (property and title prevalently held by eldest line, cadet branches gradually sinking lower generation from generation except re such individuals who either marry upwards or obtain a higher position - a peerage, much property, suchlike) is, in my understanding, the usual way of the world, the German high nobility with ebenbuertigkeit are an exception. The generationally most modern legitimate descents from british monarchs that follow such are apparently those of Marty, the youngest daughter of Henry VII [12] as well as in Scottish side the countess of Arran [13]. YOu will see that within a century, lowest of their legitimate descendants are already gentry without peerage titles, and within a couple of centuries, apparently pure commoners are among legitimate royal heirs.

You can check those genealogics tabulations further - just click the person and then select her/his "descendants".

Illegitimates (who are of course biological descendants, but not entitled to succession) mean that descendants may be commoners very soon after first generations. And, also Hanoverians had plenty of illegitimate issue as well as morganatic, a portion of them in British isles. 84.251.186.14 12:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)