User talk:Worobiew

Welcome!

Since you haven't been welcomed yet...

Do not write Lithuanian history and never edit it!!! write your countries history. ok?

Welcome!

Hello, Worobiew, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Lisatwo 20:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Viscount Severn

Hiya. Well, Louise and Severn's names and styles are quite controversial. They are both styled as non-royal children of a non-royal earl, despite being, by 1917 Letters Patent Prince(ss). However, there is an issue as to the legal effects of the announcement the Queen made – some consider that, because the Queen's word is law in these matters, the announcement can legally deny the pair of their princely styles, whereas others say that the announcement has no effect in law. Now, Lady Louise is styled Windsor, and I daresay Lord Severn will be too, even if their surnames are legally Mountbatten-Windsor (that is, if they are not legally princely). If they are legally princely, they have no surname. Either way, they're styled as Windsor, so we use that as the best compromise ^† D B D 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Kings of Jerusalem

Sorry I wasn't aware, it just seemed strange that somebody who is claiming such an important title wouldn't have a Wikipedia article and the family page didn't seem too remarkable (compared to Bourbon or Bonapartists)... but the von Urach link makes things more clear. Perhaps you could create an article for him, explaining the ins and outs of his claim and family conections? Thanks. - Gennarous (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for Your confidence! ;-)
But there are an article about von Urach family. --Worobiew (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*

Why are you indexing articles under *? If I wanted to know about Halton House, surely the first place I would look is under H for Halton? -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to know about Halton House, please look under H for Halton. But in Category:Rothschild family under H would be only people – Rothschild family members, wouldn't it? -- Worobiew (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just unusual to group so many articles under * at the start. Normally only one or two are indexed in this way. -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pistolkors

To be honest, I'm not sure what the most proper spelling of this family name would be. I used Pistolkors when I wrote the articles I wrote because that was how it was spelled in a couple of the books I had. I wouldn't have a major problem with changing the spelling to include the "h" if you think it's more widely used. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1st house of Courtenay?

Exactly how do you mean this term? As I understand it, and without looking at my notes, the descendants of Athon established houses in France, England and Constantiople. The French and Latin families died out. The English family lost the title (was attainted) during the Wars of the Roses then it was restored by Queen Mary I in the person of I believe Edward Courtenay who was her suitor for a time, but was eventually exiled and died childless in Padua (in fact, it passed to the descendants of three brothers in turn, the last being Edward's father). The title was restored by the current branch of the family which argued that an usual phrasing in Mary's grant gave the title to "heirs male" rather than "heirs male of the body" meaning the current family, which at the time were second or third cousins to Edward, had a claim to the title. So depending on how you count the current family could be the 3rd, 4th, or even 6th family, but certainly not the first. Thatcher 21:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also not seen this usage anywhere previously including in my correspondence with other Courtenay genealogists, the Courtenay Society or Powderham, so I wonder if it isn't original research to make this kind of designation. Thatcher 21:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Hi there. I'm not really understanding why you reverted my edit. Why is her name required, piped into all the category links? Prince of Canada^{t | c} 23:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please, look: in all of categories, that I corrected in the article Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (House of Windsor, British royal consorts, Bowes-Lyon family, English and British princesses, Duchesses of York, Queen mothers, Indian empresses) persons are sorting by first name, but not by surname. Isn't it? --Worobiew (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 01:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House of Montagu

Much neater, thank-you! I'm trying to organise all the noble (ducal) houses of the UK into their own categories, but I rushed the Montagu one. Thanks again. :) FusionWarrior (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but what do you think about deleting of your category? --Worobiew (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes fine, I see what you mean, but what's the big rush? :) FusionWarrior (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an English native speaker, excuse me. And therefore I don't understand the slang meaning of the word rush. --Worobiew (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. Thanks for all your help with the category. Best wishes, hope we can complete the category together. :) FusionWarrior (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thank you for your understanding. Best wishes too. ;-) --Worobiew (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of heirs to the Russian throne

You have done OK job in this article but there has been mistakes... Example: Vasily I heir is Yury Dmitrievich and not his sons... This has been decided in will of Dmitri Donskoi [1] (link is on russian). Vasily I has not liked this but .....

Today I will look for other possible mistakes and if it is OK with you we will discuss on talk page ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know about Ivan IV brother problems but he has been 1 year old child in 1533 so without question he is heir. His problems will became public knowledge latter and it is good question if this is reason for not being heir (latter he is even having his child). Think about fact that Ivan VI which is having much greater problems.

Shortly after birth Peter II is proclaimed Grande prince. It is very hard to claim that Peter II is not heir presumptive until 1722 ?

Decree of the succession to the throne from 1722 is not reason to delete heirs of that period. It is known that emperor has proclaimed person heir and he will latter became emperor (Peter III, Paul I)

Your thinking about this 4 problems ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Churchill

Hi, I think you may have been the author of the lines on the Wikipage for George Churchill which read: "It is difficult to believe that these appointments involved active service. If Churchill had really served, or wished to serve, afloat, there can be little question but that, with his brother's court interest, his promotion would have been very much more rapid." If so, I wonder whether you would kindly look at the article as further amended to list other periods of service, and review the opinion you expressed? Churchill served extensively during the Restoration era (I have added further details of commissions on ships which you missed out, with a reference to Charnock's published list; I might add that I have also checked out the periods of service on Admiralty records - particularly ADM 10/15) and certainly put in a long amount of sea service; see the note I have added to the discussion page for George Churchill. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Obolensky

Hi Worobiew! What's your source for Obolensky's mother name "Lubov Naryshkina"? Why neither Alexander nor his father are on this family tree? Thank you! --necronudist (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi necronudist! On this family tree are both:

2h) Alexander (St.Petersburg 4 Feb 1916-k.a.over England 28 Mar 1940) and
3g) Sergei (Moscow 21 Feb 1879-London 3 Dec 1960); m.St.Petersburg 5 Feb 1914 Lubov Alexandrovna Naryschkine (St.Petersburg 27 Jan 1890-London 10 Apr 1967). Look more thoroughly again, please! -- Worobiew (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies of Llangollen

Some fine genealogical refinement, Worobiew. I notice that the article currently states: "The Ponsonby Arms public house in Llangollen takes it's name from Sarah Ponsonby." (no reference currently given). I had always assumed that it had taken its name from the Ponsonby family, not from Sarah as such. I wonder do you have any reference or maybe an alternative view? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bot

Hi. This bug is not due to my bot. I am just using AWB to to substitute BD. I can send you the my AWB settings if you want. The only things is done is to substitute BD according to the procedure described in Template:Lifetime. I noticed a couple of bus myself and I reported them to AWB. Please, if possible just fix the pipes in the categories and don't re-add BD. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the bug: [2]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]