User talk:Lord Emsworth

Please note that I might re-format any comments. See also: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7 and Archive 8.

You're 17!!?!?!!!!

Oh my god! I never use that many punctuation marks, but crimey! I was SOOOO convinced you were a 56-year-old Brit of low-level noble birth who worked at Burke's Peerage. Swear to god. I'm floored. You're a rock star. Wow. jengod 00:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's American, too... :) – ugen64 21:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Today's FA

I just thought I'd note that today's FA, Mary II of England, is one of yours and that (as usual) it is excellent. Raul654 20:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I thought you might get a chuckle out of this -- Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations Raul654 01:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Important AfD

I am contacting editors applies NPOV and NOR standards rigidly for their input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, where a consensus has yet to be established. I think this AfD is particularly important because it has been bringing to light some fundamental differences in interpretations of content policies among editors. If you have time, please take a look at the page and add your input. Best regards. 172 07:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Lonsdale

My Lord, do you know if William Lowther, 2nd Earl of Lonsdale was called up to the House of Lords in 1841 by a writ of acceleration? Everything I've checked suggests that he never sat in the Commons again after 1841, yet he's certainly in Peel's government as Postmaster-General. His father didn't die until 1844. I mean, a writ would explain everything, I just don't have any evidence. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He was summoned to Parliament on 8 September 1841 in his father's Barony of Lowther, of Whitehaven in the County of Cumberland (Peerage of Great Britain, created 26 October 1797). (So says the Complete Peerage, at any rate.) Hope that helps. Proteus (Talk) 22:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's it exactly, many thanks. Mackensen (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a further question. Would he be known then as the Lord Lowther by virtue of the barony, for that three-year period, and not as Viscount Lowther? Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. The courtesy Viscountcy would take precedence over the substantive Barony (cf. Lord Salisbury, who was known as "Viscount Cranborne" even whilst sitting in the Lords in his father's Barony of Cecil). Proteus (Talk) 08:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something for you to read

I think you might be amused by this Raul654 20:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Lord of the Admiralty

You redirected "First Lord of the Admiralty" to "Admiralty" with the edit summary "this list exists elsewhere".

First - I question whether this is a good reason for redirection. The office itself merits an article, whether the incumbents are listed somewhere else or not. It was an important office.
Second - where is this other place where the incumbents are listed? Why isn't this the place where the list should be maintained? How are later readers, like myself, going to go check to see whether the list remains in existence a year later? -- Geo Swan 03:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- See List of Lord High Admirals and First Lords of the Admiralty, which it mentioned on Admiralty. FWIW, in this case, I think it make sense to have one page which discusses all of the offices. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Village Voice

Nice little mention the other day (17 January). Just thought I'd drop by and pass along a little gratitude to a fellow Lord for promoting Wikipedia. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Black edits

I appreciate your hard work on the Hugo Black article, and rather than engage in an edit war with you I want to make a couple of points. First, the ordering of Black's beliefs as relating to specific provisions of the Bill of Rights as the actually appear in the Bill of Rights is completely arbitrary. Black's civil rights record needs to be treated separately in the article. Frankly, the old structure, which treated the issues in a sort of chronological order (civil rights first, then incorporation, then free speech during the McCarthy era, his rejection of "right of privacy" in the 1960s, etc.) was superior because Black's emphasis, if not his actual views, changed over time and also because the new structure is utterly arbitrary. I disagree strongly with some sections where you attempt to describe Black's record as inconsistent, incidentally; I don't think that it is true that his lack of support for extending the Fourth Amendment or "right of privacy" renders his jurisprudence less absolute than he claimed. And I don't agree with many of your deletions of content; for example, Chambers v. Florida was the first indication that this ex-Klansman was not actually racially prejudiced on the bench. I am not going to keep playing revert games with you, however; I expect you to respond to my comment in some manner. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

interview request

Hi Lord Emsworth,

I'm a reporter for Gannett's Washington Bureau and I'm writing about Wikipedia. An Admin told me you are the top contributor "by far and away." Would you have time for a quick interview? Please send your contact information to ngaudiano@gns.gannett.com.

Thanks,

Nicole Gaudiano Gannett News Service

Use of "Lord"

Fantastic work that you do here!! Can you help me here please? Would Arthur Russell, second son of Lord George William Russell have been called Lord Arthur Russell? Why? Thanks in anticipation. Cutler 12:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Bill of Rights

Hi, I'm soliciting Wikipedia:Peer review#United States Bill of Rights comments from people who contributed to the FA on the 1st Amendment, since there doesn't seem to be any response at PR. Many thanks, Kaisershatner 21:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

It was good to see your name on some recent contributions, even if have been concentrating until recently on US legal subjects rather than (the much more important) British topics ;) Your contributions are all the more valuable these days, given how few and far between they seem to be. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Prince Rupert of the Rhine

Salve Lord Emsworth, you have once helped edit the article above. There is a discussion on the correct name of the article though, since you helped out maybe you care to drop by and take a look? With kind regards Gryffindor 17:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Head's up

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 17, 2006 - (Intentionally aimed for St. Patrick's day) Raul654 00:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Hesketh

Hello, I was mining "Random article" for something fun to work on today and I stumbled upon Baron Hesketh, an article you started. I noticed that there are a lot of links to un-created articles. In my opinion, it seemed too many, so I removed most of them. I also notice that solitary years were linked, so I removed those as well, in accordance to the MoS at WP:DATE (the linking of years should either be for a strong connection to that year in question, or as part of a full date, where the wikilink is mainly about allowing the user's preferred style of date display to be used.) Just thought I'd leave you a note in case you disagree with me and would like to discuss these edits I've made. Best, Johntex\^talk 23:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Black

Hello there. Since you seem to have been involved in editing Hugo Black, I thought I'd tell you that I have posted some—I hope helpful!—comments about the article on the talk page. They respond to some of the objections that were made during the failed featured-article nomination. You can see my comments here. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Faber

Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Please read the bottom two sections of that page. Thanks. Nightscream 18:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael John Brougham, 5th Baron Brougham and Vaux

Don't know how much it helps - but I photographed Lord Brougham's daughters wedding - there's some pictures of Michael here that I give permission to use on Wikipedia. Sculpher 24 March 2006

Lord Wolfson of Marylebone

I notice you seem to have some knowledge of British peerage, and I'm wondering if you can take a look at Talk:Lord Wolfson of Marylebone and make any comments you might feel appropriate. It's not a subject I know much about, and I wouldn't want to get the titles wrong. Fan1967 15:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your recommendation, I have moved the article to Leonard Wolfson, Baron Wolfson (talk). I also merged the two articles on him. Fan1967 00:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! --Mermes 01:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Utah

I am a student at the University of Utah working on a thesis project about Wikipedia. I am researching the construction of knowledge within the wikipedia institution and hope to find some contributing members who would be willing to allow me to interview them (either on IM or video chat). I read about you in a Wired article that was published last year. Would you be willing to grant me an interview that I would be able to use for my thesis? Also, could you think of any other members that would be good people to interview? 155.97.209.58 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)U of U Student[reply]

FARCs

You may like to comment here: [1] Giano | talk 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords Chancellor

Hi, on Lord Chancellor you changed the plural to Lord Chancellors from Lords Chancellor. Can I ask why you did this, when it is a clear compound plural, indeed if you look at An official Report by a Royal Commission and the following parts of Hansard [2] and [3] you will see the term Lords Chancellor used. As you will well know Hansard is not a verbatim account of debates and always makes corrections to MPs or Lords speeches when errors are made, therefore it is clear that the correct pluralisation is Lords Chancellor. --Wisd e n17 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your quick reply. I've contacted my MP, House of Lords Information Office and Hansard to see what their views are. I'll let you know the result of my inquires, as my MO at least should get back to me, as he is legally obliged to. --Wisd e n17 15:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know my MP got back to me, very quickly (withing 24 hours) and he's written to the Lord Chancellor. So I'll let you know the outcome when I get some news. --Wisd e n17 19:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, Lord High Chancellor → Lord High Chancellors, I think, no? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly the same issue, I personally would say Lords HIgh Chancellor, and indeed this I would argue is the correct form of the compound plural (I don't know if you know much about compound plurals, but worth researching, e.g. court martial → courts martial). I'll be interested to see what the Lord Chancellor's Office have to say. --Wisd e n17 22:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think that there is any dispute about "courts martial," "attorneys general," "sons-in-law," and so forth. In each of these cases, the first part is a noun, and the second an adjective. However, this is not the case with "Lord Chancellor." -- Emsworth 22:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I would contend that Lord Chancellor is a noun adjective construction. Lord is a noun, the Lord Chancellor has to be a Member of the House of Lords, thus has to be a Lord (which is a noun) and he is a 'special' Lord, in the sense that he is a Lord with the position of Chancellor, thus Chancellor acts as an adjective. Thus Lord Chancellor, with the adjective Chancellor, separates him from simply a Lord.

I note Encylopedia Britanica use 'Lords Chancellor' and Answers.com --Wisd e n17 23:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord Chancellor need not be a Lord; several commoners have been appointed to this position. The Lord Chancellor is not a special Lord, but a special Chancellor (as opposed to, for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of Oxford University). He is often referred to as "the Chancellor"; he is never called "the Lord." -- Emsworth 23:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but I'm still not convinced. The point about reference to him as the Chancellor is beside the point really, and the appointment of commoners whilst interesting does not change the logic. Surely upon appointment to the position of Lord Chancellor one would have to be enobled otherwise how can one sit in the House? --Wisd e n17 00:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a little more serious than the plural form, our article is out of date now that parts of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 have come into force - [4] -- ALoan (Talk) 00:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan?

Hi, just to let you know you hav a tribute act... Henry ^Flower 22:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania

Dear Emsworth,

A long-time Wodehouse fan, I have enjoyed your contributions since before your dominance of the FA pages. I hope that you are considering attending Wikimania this summer in Cambridge [conveniently in our fair country]. Would you be interested in organizing discussions around the conference? Perhaps one concerning research and excellent writing, from a wikipedian's perspective. There will be many encyclopedists and outside researchers in attendance with their own views; and many of the participants in the online parts of the conference would benefit from such discourse.

Drop me a line, and be well, +sj + 21:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast reply. Would you be interested in taking part, in some limited degree, online? That is where most of the discussions will take place. And there may be some scholarships available for community members... +sj + 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:King of Athens

Template:King of Athens has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Ardric47 00:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 10:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Papal conclave

Hey. I saw that you had created the Papal conclave article, but it refers only to the Roman Catholic Church. Would you be interested in expanding your article to include the process of electing a pope in the Coptic Church? [5] I was writing a stub about a guy who apparently got the most votes to be Pope, but he lost when someone else's name was drawn from a hat. I thought you might have more interest and knowledge about that than I do.

Awesome Stuff

I've just finished reading your article on the Lord Chancellor, and I must say it is very impressive indeed. Props to you for your evident effort in quality research and concise writing. :)

FARC

Just in case you are not aware, three of your article are being FARCd - Mary I of England, Edward VI of England and Robert Walpole. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew´s Page

Hello, dear Emsworth. I am writing to you because I have written an article about a theme which seems being of your interest. I would love any suggestion, regarding grammatical issues specially. Anytime. Andrew. I am terribly sorry, Emsworth. The article is: William Henry Smith (businessman). Anytime. --AndresArce 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)AndresArce[reply]

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Columbus

Hi,

I have put a lot of work into bringing the Knights of Columbus article up to Featured Article status. You are clearly the king in this area, so I'm seeking out your help. One reviewer thinks the prose still needs a little work, the only other comments have been supports. Would you mind taking a look at it? Thanks! Briancua 15:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article delisting for George II of Great Britain

Howdy, just posting here to let you know that the article George II of Great Britain, which you successfully nominated for Featured Article status, is currently under consideration for delisting. Feel free to join the discussion or address the concerns raised there. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XIII

Sir,

In the page Pope Benedict XIII, you've added in 2004 that he avoided at first to be called Benedict XIII "due to the superstition alleging that the number thirteen brings bad luck" (see here). I agree he chose at first to be called Benedict XIV, but the reason is not clear. What is your source to affirm it was due to superstition? Was it a mere supposition or a fact? Švitrigaila 11:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranulph Fiennes

Surely if he's father died before he was born, the Baronetcy would have become extinct - they surely can't have waited a couple of weeks just in case the baby was male. Petsco 15:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they wait - as a legitimate child en ventre sa mere at the time of his father's death, he can and would (and did!) succeed his father. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger me...learn something everyday Petsco 10:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince-elector

Prince-elector is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiholidays? Or else?

I note that you have sharply limited your participation in Wikipedia. Any particular reason? Perhapos you could leave a short note on your user or talk page to stop people like me wondering if you are all right and when can we see you back...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lords

House of Lords is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 00:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary I of England

Mary I of England is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 02:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! M a rtinp23 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Garter

Order of the Garter is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hereditary peer

Hereditary peer is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. LuciferMorgan 12:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad

Some people seem to have a bee in the bonnet about your FAs. The main problem seems to be the changes in WP:WIAFA, which now require "inline citation" (that is, page references and the like). Some of your fine articles are being saved from the block, but others have and will go, sad to say.

I trust you are having an excellent time at college, and I am sure there are plenty of better things to be doing at the moment, but please come back some day and help us to save the rest! -- ALoan (Talk) 19:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James II of England

James II of England is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 21:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for United States House of Representatives

I have nominated United States House of Representatives for review. Nothing personal -- it's a high-quality article, but standards are changing these days. Thesmothete 06:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of St. Patrick

Order of St. Patrick is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 15:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

First Amendment to the United States Constitution is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 17:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokes

Hello! You are missed.

As you will have seen, increasing standards (particularly the demand for inline citations) are unfortunately cutting a swathe through your excellent featured article. Never mind - I am sure you will be back when college permits. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I am glad you have your priorities in the right order. Best of luck with your studies. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Mackensen (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of adding to this 'love-in' your contributions on wiki have certainly been missed :) Alci12 14:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love-in be damned, it's good to see you around. :-)

James F. (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Even though I never knew you or interacted with you (I joined in October), I've heard a lot about (and read) your wonderful contributions. It's good to see you contributing (at least for a while) to Wikipedia again! Good luck with your studies! Gzkn 08:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you are here...

Ahh, you've alerted me to your presence by venturing into PR, now you only have yourself to blame.

Do you by any chance have any recollection where this came from in the Order of St. Patrick (the italicised section):

At a considerably smaller scale, to the back of the stall was affixed a piece of brass (a "stall plate") displaying its occupant's name, arms and date of admission into the Order. Upon the death of a Knight, the banner, helm, mantling, crest (or coronet or crown) and sword were taken down. The stall plates remained permanently affixed, so that the stalls of the chapel maintained a colourful record of the Order's Knights.

A few of us have been working to save it from being de-FAed and just can't track down a citation for that claim. No worries if you don't have time, or can't remember where it came from, but I don't like to remove stuff if it can be sourced. Cheers, Yomangani ^talk 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tynwald Day FAR

Tynwald Day has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This so minor, I can't help laughing just bringing it up.

Can I interest you in looking up the facts of the matter behind who is *genuinely* the pretender (yes, I know this too humorous for words, isn't it) to the "Finnish Throne" (again, I can't emphasize how much makes me split my sides laughing). According to wikipedia that would be Moritz, Landgrave of Hesse, who is the head of the House of Hesse. But also according to wikipedia Prince Philip of Hesse-Kassel - his father... was not going to be the crown prince for the "Finnish Throne" (note the scare quotes, I think them very appropriate here). On the other hand - "At Frederick's death, his eldest surviving son, Philipp, succeeded him as head. However, according to certain family documents and correspondence, his successor as King of Finland would have been his second surviving son Prince Wolfgang of Hesse (1896–1989), apparently because Wolfgang was with his parents in 1918 and ready to travel to Finland, where a wedding to a Finnish lady was already in preparation for the coming Crown Prince." - so sayeth the article Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse. I honestly have not the faintest idea of the legalities of any of this. Prince Wolfgang of Hesses article claims that he died without issue, and thus the (as humorous as it may appear, I repeat) pretendership would have passed to his brother Philipp. However I have just today read a Finnish magazine that claims that the (again very funny) claim to a Finnish Throne would not have automatically passed on to his brother, but to some chap I have never heard of before, called Donatus. If you can make head or tail of this, you are truly a better man than I. I can try to copy some of the details from that magazine article, as it seems wikipedia doesn't have them. I can't tell you how much this all amuses me, truly. Of all things... The Finnish Throne. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 05:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Heinrich, Hereditary Prince of Hesse seems to be the chap they have in mind. Again, I really don't understand the legalities of this at all, but I will try to copy the argument soon, as I reread the article in more detail. But if you have a cut and dried interpretation on this matter, that would of course help muchly in this *so* serious matter (laughs). -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh Peers

Nadolig Llawen! Merry Christmas!

I am attempting to list specifically Welsh titles in the various peerages, might you be available to lend your expertise? The list would note weather the title is a primary or subsidary title, or in abyence. Additionally, I wish to note who is the current title and where their principle seat might be. Lastly, I have founded a page called List of Welsh Peers, but my inexpirence in formate may be lacking. This page shall also list pre- Treaty of Aberconwy (Edwardian Conquest) titles too. If you are able to assist, thank you very much! Drachenfyre 11:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Society Barnstar
		With thanks for your numerous contributions. Timrollpickering 18:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bavaria_arms.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bavaria_arms.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII FAR

Henry VIII of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Anne of Great Britain

Anne of Great Britain has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Jeffpw 09:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George IV of the United Kingdom FAR

George IV of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Thistle FAR

Order of the Thistle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 22:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Representative peer FAR

Representative peer has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 19:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Parliamentary Barnstar
		I, Sam Blacketer, award you this barnstar for your exceptional contributions to raising articles about the Parliament of the United Kingdom to featured article status. Sam Blacketer 12:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Assent FAR

Royal Assent has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 17:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tynwald day

Hello, Sorry to be bothering you but you appear as one of the earliest contributors of Tynwald Day. The introduction of the article states this usually occurs on July 5 and the body of the article states it traditionnally occurs on June 24. Would you know if this is some charming Manx oddity or the result of two different contributors not checking their sources ? Yours sincerely, Aunt Dahlia, aka --Anne97432 07:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was only halfway through the translation. My apologies ! --Anne97432 07:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review of Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TFA/R revamping

I have proposed revising the WP:TFA/R process. After the recent rejection of my proposal, I researched Old FAs. You were the nominator of several articles that were promoted to WP:FA before 2005, and you continue to be an active wikipedian. Many of your articles have not yet been featured on the main page as a WP:TFA. I am wondering if you have ever made an active effort to get them featured and if you are aware of the new TFA/R procedure, which requires an active request. Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James I of England FAR

James I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Observer interview request

Dear Lord Emsworth

I'm a journalist for the Observer in London writing a story about Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales, who I interviewed last week, suggested you, as star Featured Article writer, might be a good person to talk to. I see you are currently 'resting' but is there a number I could call you on about your former life?

Timadams 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Timadams, or email tim.adams@observer.co.uk[reply]

best

Tim Adams