User talk:FactStraight

Zita of Bourbon-Parma

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louis Alexandre de Bourbon, comte de Toulouse

FactStraight, I have brought some changes to the article. One of them, a reference at Family and Death , is a link to an article in fr:wiki; although showing [1], the reference does not appear when clicking on [1]. Would you mind fixing it? I added the link to References. Thank you. Frania W. (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also added reference [2] next to [1] & nothing happens when clicking on either one. Frania W. (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

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

Prince of the blood

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

Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre

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

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

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

Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark (born 1971)

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

Your stupidity

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Truce?

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

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

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

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

Cadet branch

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

Your recent edits

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

reverts etc

where is the sense in constantly reverting everything i do:

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

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

Wrong person to accuse

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

???

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

Talk:Francization of Brussels

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

Wilhelm II

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

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

Anon

No problem. I'll leave a note on his talk page explaining him what "consensus" means. BTW is blatantly obvious that the anon = User:Tbharding as 86.164.90.95 edited his userpage twice ([1]). I'll explain to him a few other policies Wikipedia policies & guidelines. If he continues his disruptive behavior after several more warnings I could see a ban, but we'll see. I don't think he has ever even been blocked yet in the first place however. Khoikhoi 04:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Louis of battenberg

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

REDFLAG

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

Re

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

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

Stop the vandalism on Michael I of Romania

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

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

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

October 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

About Prince Pedro de Alcântara editing

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

"Hello!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

"Ma'am,

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

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

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

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

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

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

p.248 (fifth and sixth paragraphy)

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

Princess Cristina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies

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

Surname of French royal family

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

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

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

hello

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

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

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

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

Bourbon related articles

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

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

Michael of Romania

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

Westling errors

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

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

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

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

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

West thing not Westling this time

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

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

Salic law and agnatic primogeniture

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

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

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

primogeniture sorts

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

"Tomislav"

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

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

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

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

Tomislav II of Croatia

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

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

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

Louis Alexandre de Bourbon (1747–1768)

FactStraight,

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

Isabel(la)

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

Radu

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

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

Tfoxworth (talk · contribs)

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

Dealing with TFoxworth

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

Get your facts straight!

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

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

You're Not being neutral about this!

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

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

Invitation

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

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

Nobile

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

WikiBirthday

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

Problems with editor Fernande

Fact, there was recently a discussion in the talk page of article Gaston, comte d'Eu [2] about and editor called Fernandoe who insists on changing the meaning of sourced text although the source does not says what he writes. To be more clear, he insists on adding "surnames" to royals.[3] [4] The discussion, as you can see since you were also part of it, agreed that his editions do not make any sense. Worse: he did not bother to participate in it. I am tired of serving as nothing more as a watch dog reverting his edits. Something must be done about him and fast. --Lecen (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material in BLP

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

NCROY archives

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

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

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

Reverts on Nobility article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewer granted

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

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

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

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

Hmmmm

I am aware you do not like me for whatever reason but please have some compassion! I have worked hard on Mademoiselle and all information has been referenced, sourced and is the truth! I have slacked on the ref side of things but only recently learnt how to do it [lol]! Anyway, please just dont revert things it is so frustrating! A biography of a person includes all things even if they are about where they lived in exile, where they were born or who taught them! It is all factual! Please! I am very disappointed to be honest --LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again! I do not see what is wrong with Anne Marie d'Orléans, you have done nothing to improve the article in any way! I do not see what your problem is!? It is tiring Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The edits I made to the article improved it by eliminating redundancies, trivialities, poor grammar, poor organization, or information which properly belongs in the bios of other persons, exactly as explained each time in the edit summary of the article. Moreover, I added fact tags where you have inserted speculation: These entries must be properly cited to reliable sources or deleted, and you may not simply delete the tags, re-insert the speculations, and revert them whenever they are re-inserted. That is vandalism which I will report. Your refusal to address the specific requests for reliable sources or to respond to the talk page issues I raised about your insertion of redundancies and trivialities in the article leaves me no choice but to edit out these instances -- and your mocking, un-serious comments here are inappropriate in the serious work of editing an encyclopedia. FactStraight (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not being rude but why have you removed info such as where Anne Marie was buried and that she died of heart failure etc!? This is silly and very frustrating and seems to have something to do with you being in control!? What is your problem with me?! HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say to help you understand: For YEARS now I have pointed out to you on talk pages that you are including excessive TRIVIA in Wikipedia's bios on historical royalty and nobility. I have been extremely specific, on both the talk pages you've had under various IPs and on the talk pages of the articles, about what needs to be left out, so that you could see and make these corrections yourself. I have been patient so that you could make the edits. I have left a substantial portion of your trivia in the articles. I have nothing against you personally and think that you have made very valuable contributions to WP articles -- unfortunately, you persist in mixing in the valuable information with trivia -- and I do have a strong objection to trivia in an encyclopedia, particularly because many Wiki editors consider any biographical information about royalty/nobility to be trivial. Therefore, to protect and preserve the important facts and deeds in their biographies, a high standard of notability, relevance, and editorial selectivity is warranted. You have consistently ignored, mocked or attacked my concerns. Apparently you think that if you just ignore my input, I will stop attempting to maintain a high level of quality in royalty/nobility articles. Wrong. I hope that you will review the issues raised and contribute less trivia, redundancies, poor grammar, factual error and inappropriate tone to royalty articles. The Anne Marie d'Orleans article is now improved. More to come. FactStraight (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Category clutter? Please, are you being serious?! You are being unreasonable!!!!!! HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion at Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans

Hi! I suggest that you request a third opinion at Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans#Redundant & trivial content -- again by placing {{3O}}. That way LouisPhilippeCharles and you will resolve your differences sooner. The person to respond will be someone who has never read the article before and who has never interracted with either of you so it will be an honest, neutral opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles

Just to let you know, another user has filed a Wikiquette alert regarding a user, LouisPhilippeCharles, who you appear to be having issues with. Regards, WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 15:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles.

A full investigation has not yet taken place so there is probably a lot more to come out. He has been warned not to do it in future. If he does then it will almost certainly result in a block. But as I have no intention of keeping tabs on his movements (literally and metaphorically), it will be up to others to inform me and/or WP:ANI.

As regards blocking him for past errors of judgement, there is no advantage to the project in doing that. It is milk/blood already spilt and he may not have known that he was not to do it (assume good faith). If however he does it in future then that is another matter. -- PBS (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW that he has not offered to help clean up his mess can be pointed out at any future ANI and it will be taken as an indication of bad faith if he makes any more such cut and past moves again.

I noticed Moonriddengirl's posting here and I followed it. I agree with what she said about posting diffs, if you have some then I will follow up on them, but you must assume good faith until you can prove otherwise. -- PBS (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

How do you have only 1500+ edits?? Or is my Bowmore 15 stronger than what I thought?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

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

Hmm

I do not mean to be rude, call me what you like but just stay off my talk page, it will benefit us both Adieu Monsieur le Duc (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anne Marie d'Orléans. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

Hello! I was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing Pedro II of Brazil and approve or not its nomination for good article (See: Talk:Pedro II of Brazil/GA1). Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Community reassessment of Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier

Hello, just to let you know a Community Good Article Reassessment of an article you recently contributed to, Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier, has been made as an editor doesn't feel that it meets all of the GA criteria yet. The reassessment can be found at the article reassessment page. Please feel free to make any comments there. Regards,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 02:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg

Look, no one else has a problem with it bar you =\ Be mature I beg you Louis Philippe Charles (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your personal attack, accusing me of not being "mature": that is not helpful to reaching consensus. Please respond on the article's talk page to the citations there which document that Polyxena's official titular suffix was "Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg" and that her titular prefix was "Princess". You have never cited any authoritative text justifying your preference for "Hesse-Rotenburg" or refuting my factual citations on this point. I will be glad to refrain from correcting the article on this point if you cite texts more authoritative than those I have given which refute use of the title "Princess" and the territorial designation "Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg". FactStraight (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. There is no personal attack, that argument is rather tiresome now =\ anyway, i think you will find it was me who made that article what it is today and there for have enough evidence (as shown on the references you keep on removing) that she was never styled Princess but was styled Landgravine. She, as well as all her siblings have never been styled as H R R but simply H Rotenburg. This can be seen by just looking at the names of her siblings (and other family members) that this was the case. There is no point adding other names for the sake of it, you have said this yourself. Please look at my latest edit as a compromise between the two Louis Philippe Charles (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please identify exactly what portion of your most recent change to the article reflects "a compromise between the two". Also, please respond on the talk page of the article in question rather than here, because if you have shown reliable sources which document that her title was "Hesse-Rotenburg" rather than "Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg" or "Landgravine" and not "Princess", everyone should be able to see the exact words used in that source. I have not seen it and do not believe that you have cited it. If I am in error, I will acknowledge that fact on the talk page when you quote your reliable source in defense of your edits. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Why!? Louis Philippe Charles (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI Louis Philippe Charles will be slow to answer on on talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg because he is currently serving another 48 hour block, this time for moving pages without giving due notice. -- PBS (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles

FYI see User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles. After your heads up, I have blocked his/her account for 24 hours. -- PBS (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI see User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles After your heads up, I have Blocked his/her account for one week -- PBS (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LouisPhilippeCharles indefinite block? -- PBS (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR violations

You have broken the 3RR on Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg (Revision history, your history). You are blocked for 24 hours. --PBS (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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

FYI A and B -- PBS (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Guidobaldo II della Rovere

I noticed your comments on Talk:Francesco de' Medici (1614–1634) and Talk:Guidobaldo II della Rovere because of those you might also like to have a look at Talk:Francesco Maria I della Rovere and Talk:Francesco Maria II della Rovere -- PBS (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Stalking LouisPhilippeCharles

Hello FactStraight. I noticed you posted a critique on the talk page of the article Éléonore de Bourbon. Now, while your arguments might be partially correct, i noticed something. You see, LouisPhilippeCharles edited that article. I can see from your talk page that you have a problem with LouisPhilippeCharles. But LouisPhilippeCharles did not add anything to the Éléonore de Bourbon article, he merely editing it for links etc. From my perspective what i can see, it seems as if you are on a crusade against him. Anything he touches you will find a fault in. This disturbs me. Omegastar (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Infact, from looking at your recent edits, you have copy-pasted your critique on numerous articles that ALL share one thing: they were all edited by LousiPhilippeCharles. And I noticed, atleast for the articles that i checked, that LouisPhilippeCharles did nothing more then to copy-edit the articles. He didnt add redundant or trivial information! He added references, corrected links and added categories. This is ridiculous. You are acting in bad faith and stalking a wikipedian! Omegastar (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked more articles and i see that LouisPhilippeCharles did create a number of them. But on others he merely edited them. I think that there is a problem between you and LouisPhilippeCharles, and it needs to be solved before it gets out of hand. I posted this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_FactStraight_is_stalking_and_acting_in_bad_faith. Omegastar (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

This is your only warning. If you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your repeated insertion of the same boilerplate text at the talkpage of multiple articles amounts to a personal attack against the editor referred to. Should you post another of this, you risk being blocked. Please discuss matters with the other editor or seek dispute resolution. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your concerns. I carefully avoided identifying any person who inserts trivia & redundancy. What the articles have in common is that they are bios of historical royalty, all of whom are on my watchlist because that is my primary area of editing interest (please check my contributions to verify). I did not state that each article currently contains excessive trivia or redundancy (or I would have reverted as much of it as I could). The reason I posted those warnings (if you check, I've been posting similar warnings on specific pages for 3 years back) is that the pattern is so consistent and so massively implemented that I wanted to give fair notice on articles on my watchlist that such content will be edited or reverted, and I wanted to give very clear, specific indicators as to what the objectionable content looks like. In the past I've been told that before reverting, the editor should be informed exactly what it is that is objectionable so that they have an opportunity to avoid such edits or to work toward consensus language on the talk page before reverting becomes necessary. It is still my intent to provide that notice and clarity. I will gladly edit the notice to remove content that is "identifying", but I see nothing inappropriate about explaining the basis on which I edit articles on my watchlist. I trust this clarifies? FactStraight (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It does. Thank you for clarifying. When i checked the articles in question, the correlation between your disagreements with LouisPhilippeCharles and the fact that he edited the articles you posted it on gave me the impression that you were stalking him. I probably judged too quickly and i apologise for that. But the warnings are very vague, because they seemingly merely state some rules without identifying wether the article in question has broken those rules or not. Furthermore, the rules in question are themselves pretty vague, in the sense that different people can have differing oppinions on what constitutes as trivia and redundancy. Maybe it would be a good idea for, instead of arguing over this multiple times in numerous seperate articles, you could organise a discussion for people who are involved in writing these articles, and come to a detailed agreement on how to handle these articles. And when i say agreement, i dont mean that the result must be that the view of one party is declared correct and the others declared wrong, but that you come to a compromise in which everyone can agree, because that way, you can work together in adding to and improving these articles. Omegastar (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

RE the above

FS: Please go here for my rant[5]

FW --Frania W. (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

FactStraight, before you send any more of your friends round, be aware of the following. I did not block you - a lot of admins would have done. I reverted your edits to stop any other admins blocking you. If you are having trouble with this editor, the correct approach is to start a request for comment on the user - it allows all you guys to comment in one place, and gives the opportunity for the other person to respond. You might see his point, or you might persuade him to change his ways. On the other hand, if the evidence shows that he's disruptive and he won't amend his modus operandi, you can take it to WP:ANI and ask for him to be banned from the topic. On the third hand (OK, I'm Durga) pull a stunt like that again and you will be the one in trouble.

The RFCU template is a bit of a pig - give me a shout if you decide to go down that route and need help with how to fill it out. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, I beg your pardon, but FactStraight did not enlist my help. When I checked Wikipedia earlier in the day, I noticed what he had done, then next, that you had reverted him & that he was being warned. So, I went to your talk page & left my first msg to you, then left the above note to FactStraight so that he be aware of the fact that he was the object of a discussion by me. I think this is the way such things are handled at Wikipedia. And in the current state of events, he being made the villain, I also wanted him to know that he had my support. Regards,

--Frania W. (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

He's certainly not a villain. But the fact remains, he didn't tag articles, he posted screeds on 50 talkpages. That could be seen as disruptive and might lead someone more aggressive than I to block him - not the desired outcome. So the question is - is anyone going to start this RFCU? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Elen, thank you for clarifying that you do not consider FS the villain in this on-going saga. --Frania W. (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am bewildered by this harsh response. I do not and never have wanted a particular user blocked from editing royalty bios, as clearly indicated in the discussion on this issue here. My intent was and is to discourage inclusion of trivia and redundancy in such articles along with informative edits, which I value and do not think should be diminished or excluded. I hoped to do that by expressing as clearly and explicitly as I could on the articles on my watchlist what I consider to be trivia/redundancy and am therefore prone to edit or revert. When that information is available on a talk page, might it not help editors reach consensus rather than engaging in years of revert wars over countless articles? I don't understand what rule is violated by pro-actively, non-accusatively posting that kind of info on a talk page -- given that I have offered to edit it to your satisfaction? FactStraight (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A further thought on action you can take, why not see if you and the other guys who clearly do see a problem can gee up Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Perhaps you could form a subgroup representing the period and location that interests you. That way, you would legitimately be able to input over a large number of articles to ensure consistency (see the way WP:MILHIST work) Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg

Do not edit another biography article with "Hesse" in the article title until you differences over the content of Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg have been sorted out on Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg if you do expect a long block. -- PBS (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have struck out the previous restriction in favour of a more specific restriction: Do not edit another biography article mentioned in these two templates:

until your differences over the content of Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg have been sorted out on Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg if you do expect a long block. --PBS (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I have not blocked your account and that of LPC is because you need to talk through you differences and I am trying to facilitate that. -- PBS (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"In light of the action taken in response to this dif," It was not in light of that edit, it was because I have been editing Landgraviate of Hesse-Rotenburg (to ad the information that I found and mentioned on the talk page) and those two templates were there. They better reflect the range of pages that are affected by the name dispute currently under discussion on Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg. Once there is agreement on Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg, I suspect that a number of pages will reflect that agreement.

Something that would help facilitate that conversation on Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg is if reliable sources can be found that confirm the information in Kessler, P L. "European Kingdoms: Central Europe: Landgraves of Hessen-Rheinfels (-Rotenburg) AD 1567 - 1869". The history files (Kessler Associates Printhouse). {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help), particularly "Following Philip's death, Hesse is divided into the regions of Hessen-Kassel, Hessen-Marburg, Hessen-Rheinfels and Hessen-Darmstadt, one each for Philip's four sons.". Also the line "1754 Rheinfels is removed from the family title, reducing it to Hessen-Rotenberg." Seems to contradict the line from EB 1911 "Constantine (d. 1778), reunited the lands except Rheinfels, which had been acquired by Hesse-Kassel in 1735.." unless it took them 34 years to accept the loss.

I can find most of the information already on Wikipedia but unfortunately it is copied from Dutch and German Wikipedia and they are not as rigorous on sourcing as we are on English Wikipedia.

There is also the line in the article from 1911 "[Ernest (1623-1693)] ... some years later, on the deaths of two of his brothers, he added Eschwege, Rotenburg, Wanfried and other districts to his possessions"

• Eschwege went to Frederick (a son of Maurice) before passing to Ernest in 1655 this is documented in the German version of the article de:Hessen-Rotenburg
• Rotenburg went to Herman and then to Ernest in 1558 (this is documented in the current English version of Landgraviate of Hesse-Rotenburg but not with a date citation.

We need more detailed sources than I have been able to find to date :-( -- PBS (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Meilleurs vœux !

File:Tour eiffel feu artifice.jpg

Bonne Année 2011 ! --Frania W. (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

LPC

I think LPC may be back. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles is you want to comment, thanks. - dwc lr (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had noticed the LPC pattern and thought he was trying to re-incarnate, but was too busy over the holidays to weigh in. I'll remain vigilant. FactStraight (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply: encouraging sockpuppets

Thank you for your message. The reason why I reverted the reverts made by you, was solely because the edits in question was clear improvements to the articles. I clearly stated this as my reason in my edit. I looked at the changes made by them and saw no reason to why they should be regarded to be vandalism. The change to Template:Abbesses of Remiremont, for example, was absolutely necessary, as the old link led to a different person with the same name, and if I had not made the reversion, I would have to make the very same change myself. It was thereby practical to simply revert to a more benefittal editversion rather than doing it myself. Needless to say, of course, I am not in any way encouraging the use of sockpuppets. I was not aware that User:85.226.44.57 is considered to be a sockpuppet by a blocked user. I was not aware, that edits made by IP:s suspected to be sockpuppets was to be considered vandalism and removed even if they are improvements. If I had been aware of that rule, then I would have made the same changes myself rather than by reverting. I am not informed or aware of User:LouisPhilippeCharles position at wikipedia, but as you can see by the history of this article : Duchess Maria Anna Josepha of Bavaria, I have myself been in disagreement with User:LouisPhilippeCharles regarding their consistent removal of succession-boxes. I understand, of course, that it can be very tiring and frustrating with conflicts such as the one with User:LouisPhilippeCharles, but I would appreciate not being discredited in the eyes of every visitor on by talk-page by being accused of encouraging sockpuppets for having reverted reversions of benefittal changes to an articles, unaware of the rule that such changes are classified as vandalism if they are made by sockpuppets-suspected IP:s, merely because of practical reasons. I understand the frustrating situation, but such accusations is uneccessary under the circumstances. Thank you--Aciram (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry about this problem. I did not say and did not intend to suggest that you deliberately encouraged sockpuppets. I agree that LouisPhilippeCharles's recent edits by sockpuppets have been, generally, useful edits to royalty articles. That is why I explained my reverts before doing them. For instance, I waited until an admin confirmed that 90.193.109.158 and 85.226.44.57 were sockpuppets of a blocked user, then in the edit summary for my revert of the Template: Abbesses of Remiremont, I wrote "rv vandalism by sock of indefinitely blocked User:LouisPhilippeCharles" to warn anyone else who edited of what I was doing and why. What did you think my edit summary meant? I had no way of knowing you were unaware that any edit to an article by a blocked user or sockpuppet is automatically considered vandalism on Wikipedia and is subject to being reverted. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether you restore his edit or immediately substitute your own identical edit -- the effect is the same: the blocked user gets away with "gaming the system", i.e. he gets his work into Wikipedia despite having forfeited, by his improper behavior, the right to edit. This is a deliberate and clever strategy on the part of LouisPhilippeCharles to force Wikipedia to accept his continuing input: Although he is blocked indefinitely for making many, many improper edits, he has figured out that if he carefully makes some "good" edits, someone will protect them and he will have thwarted the admins. Usually what I have seen done in cases like this is that the blocked user's edits are reverted, and then eventually I or others will independently discover the need for corrections and make them. But they will not be as a result of the blocked user bringing attention to them. If you tolerate a blocked user's edits you end up encouraging him -- albeit unintentionally -- to use sockpuppets to edit Wikipedia and defy its rules. I am open to any alternative suggestions you may have to improve Wikipedia without rewarding misbehavior. I apologize if you feel that my comment made you look bad. But I also felt that your revert of my edits suggested they were all improper. So now may I respectfully suggest that we work together to solve this problem? Thanks. 22:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I accept the appology. It was not my intent to sound overly upset, but I did have the impression that I was accused of deliberately encouraging sockpuppets, which naturally did'nt feel good. I am glad that it is not the case, and I understand that you may have taken my revertions badly in a similar manner as I did your message. I assure you that my revertions was not personal but made simply because I could not see that the specific edits was vandalism - I was not aware of the background story. I saw your edit summary, but I am afraid that I simply registered that the reversion was made because the edit had been regarded as vandalism, and as I know that many edits made my IP:users is, sadly, removed even when they are made by good anonomous users, I simply did not consider that there could have been another reason, being unaware as I was of this rule. I understand the problem in the cases when these edits is truly done as a form of strategy, but it seems frustrating to, for example, leave the wrong link on Template: Abbesses of Remiremont for, say, a month and preventing a good use of the template just because a blocked user have used this as a form of strategy. But, hopefully, I trust this is not too common a strategy for blocked users. No hard feelings. Regards--Aciram (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. The only things I know about this user is more or less the fact that he kept removing succession-boxes all the time, which was much disturbing. I leave this in the capable hands of the admins. While discussing such things, perhaps you would be interested to have a look at the Nurbanu Sultan article, or direct the attention of an admin to it? As you can see by the edit history, this article are very often involved in POV-edit wars, and it has been necessary for me to revert several POV edits. I am convinced that the editors responsible are simply uninformed about the POV-NPOV-rules, but it is still very tiring to have to deal with this so often. I am not at all sure what to do about it, and as you can see above, I am not an expert in what to do about such matters, so I thought it would be good to direct the attention of someone with more knowledge about such things to the problem. Perhaps some sort of protection of the page? I don't know. Of course, you don't have to get involved. I hope something can be done about it, as I am getting a little too tired to get involved in it much longer. Please have a look at it if you have the time. Regards--Aciram (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This edit is in the wrong place.

It needs to be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations as there is already a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles linking to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles/Archive, I think that it should be appended under a date (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive another repeat offender), but I am not sure so please ask at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. -- PBS (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Account hacked

I doubt it. I put in another account and all is OK for me. Try logging off and see if the same is still happening using an IP address. If not then close you browser reopen and log back in. If the problem is still there then email me, as there are a couple of other possibilities, but I do not want to discuss them here. (see WP:BEANS). --PBS (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The effect was probably due to the maintenance being carried out. It's been causing weird effects all round the 'pedia. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible linkspam -- your opinion?

Hey, an IP and now a new user has been adding adding a link to www.royalhouseofgeorgia.ge to various article dealing with these people e.g., here and here. You're the go-to person when it comes to royalty in Georgia (in my mind) so I wanted to check with you if this looks like a legitimate link. Whether the user should be going on a spree adding it to all these articles might be another question. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I had noticed the link but just hadn't had time to look at it (or its "linker") closely. There are three problems with it: 1. it is biased in favor of one of the candidates for pretender to the throne of Georgia 2. the website is obviously written by someone whose first language is not English and it contains minimal information, thus it appears amateurish. 3. There is no evidence that it is authoritative in any way, i.e., the website implies but does not explicitly claim to have the imprimatur of any official monarchist or Georgian entity, nor of the Georgian Orthodox Church, nor of any member of the Bagration dynasty. I see nothing improperly POV about it being linked to articles on members of the Moukhrani branch of the House of Bagration, since it focuses exclusively on their side of the family and upholds their claim to the throne. But it contradicts the POV of those who support the Gruzinsky branch's claim to the throne. And it should not be linked to neutral Bagration or Georgian articles unless there's also a link to a site that supports the opposing claims of the Gruzinsky branch (both sides have adherents who intermittently spam Georgian articles on Wikipedia). Bottom line: it adds little but a photo of the Mukhrani heir and Gruzinsky heiress together (they may or may not still be married: I have yet to see reliable sources in English on that point), which is the best I've seen but I wonder if it meets WP criteria for upload? Worse, it's biased and we have no reason to believe it's authorized by any stakeholder whose position on the Bagrations is notable enough to justify the link. So it should go. FactStraight (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

Your apology is accepted. As you can see I have been unblocked now. Though I was initially at a loss of why I was being suspected of being a sockpuppet, I now understand the situation better and why people are weary of that user.

Sincerely and without hard feelings,

Peaceingalaxy —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

Russian Constitution of 1906

Thanks so much for your recent assistance with the Russian Constitution of 1906 article. I hadn't noticed how much my wording tended toward a negative (toward Nicholas) slant, but once I saw your corrections, it became readily apparent. Your aid has taken this article to a higher level, and I thank you for it. I'll see what I can do over the course of this week to find sources in the areas you indicated, and I have already removed one unsourced comment (toward the end of the "Provisions" section). As I think we'd both agree, this is definitely a work in progress (and I'm trying to work on two or three other projects, at the same time!)! Thanks again for your input. Cheers!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for working so hard and consistently to improve the article, and for your gracious response to my edits aimed at assuring that the article is as balanced as possible. FactStraight (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Thanks again for your efforts and improvements, as well. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles ban

I had a look at some of the edits by User:85.226.41.143 of the edit made which do you think indicates that it is LPC?

I would support moves to ban LPC, but I will not initiate it as I have enough to do already. I have never seen an editor who is simultaneously blocked from all languages before and personally I can not see how it would be coordinated to unblock him on all sites. His continuing proxy editing since his block has in my mind makes him an irreconcilable. If you decide to proceed with a request via ANI or whatever let me know and I'll put in my tuppence worth. -- PBS (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Consort list articles

I hope this doesn't count as Wikipedia:Canvassing, but your comment at Talk:List of consorts of Montpensier made me think you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of consorts of X. Opera hat (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Unfortunately, I think that directly contacting a Wiki editor who has previously expressed an opinion on this matter does constitute canvassing. However, since I had the Montpensier and all the other "consort" articles on my Watchlist anyway I independently saw the notices you placed on each of their talk pages, and would have weighed in anyway. FactStraight (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

LPC Sock?

Hi FactStraight, you are usually good at spotting sock puppets of LouisPhilippeCharles what do you think of User:Little Cambridge? I know in the past LPC and his socks made a lot of templates and categories the type of which Little Cambridge has made. I'm not sure if creating categories and templates is the sort of thing a new user would do straight away. - dwc lr (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm suspicious of any account created post-LPC's block if it edits the same articles he used to in the same way. He's trying to stay "below the radar" by editing non-royalty articles as well, but if you look at those edits they are usually more minor than his royalty edits -- or are just "blank" edits. In this case, I had noticed Little Cambridge but don't usually pay attention to templates or categories. I will now watch his/her edits more closely -- and thanks for bringing this to my attention. FactStraight (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy titles

You reverted my edit on Count Ingolf of Rosenborg where I had removed the reference to courtesy titles. I am curious why? I believe the notion of a "courtesy title" as referenced is completely irrelevant and different from the examples cited: Compte Henri was born a compte/count (by French/Continental practise, since his father was a count) and passes this title on to his sons (A courtesy title cannot be passed on); Princess Anne had a title by marriage, not courtesy: if she had remained married to Viscount Anson when he succeeded, she would have become The Countess Lichfield, which is not a courtesy title but a substantive title of the(wife of a member of the) British peerage. Also, the article cites Dr as an example of a courtesy title, which presumably would not have been relevant for an approved Royal Danish marriage?

I suggest we at least remove the hyperlink (since it is misleading) and better still, remove the phrase courtesy title. In the context, the point is that approved marriages were only to people who held aristocratic titles (without being specific about how or why those titles come about).

Hfossa (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither Henri de Laborde de Monpezat nor Anne Bowes-Lyon held "real" titles when they married (into the Danish royal family, yet both used and were widely addressed by noble titles. Henri's title was self-assumed by an ancestor, the family's elevation to France's nobility having been twice blocked by the Estates where his family owned land in the 18th century. Anne had belonged, both by birth and marriage, to noble families but was never herself noble. She shared her previous husband's title, but that was a "courtesy title" even by British standards, and it is irrelevant what lawful peerage her husband was due to inherit since a. he did not do so during Anne's marriage to him, and b. at the time of her marriage into the Danish royal family she was never going to become a peeress-by-marriage because she was divorced. So both of these commoners (who looked as if they were noble because of the titles they bore by courtesy) were accepted as marital partners into the Danish royal family at a time when the dynasty still did not authorize marriages to untitled persons (or the marriages of Ingolf and his brother would have been dynastic). It would be misleading for the article to suggest that their noble titles were valid under current or historical law, so I thought it more accurate to describe their situation as "known by the kind of courtesy titles typical of Europe's hereditary nobility." I do, however, agree with you that Wiki's Courtesy title article does not reflect the circumstances well because it focuses on British courtesy titles (French tradition allows for use of titres de courtoisie as much as does British, but only for members of genuinely noble families, which the Laborde de Monpezats were not). The problem, IMO, is that the "Courtesy title" article needs to be expanded and corrected ("Dr." is a professional prefix, not a courtesy title). Until it is, however, I agree with you that the link should be deleted. Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. FactStraight (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, while I thank you for linking to this discussion in your edit summary, this conversation should be copied to Talk:Count Ingolf of Rosenborg (and should probably have taken place there in the first place) so that other interested editors might participate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mariano Hugo

Hi, regarding your recent edits to the Mariano Hugo article, are you aware that you should provide translations for foreign language sources and that genealogy websites are not usually considered to be reliable sources? - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and per WP:MOSHEAD your recent change to the section heading for Appointments and activities is contrary to the guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tudor dynasty#Move?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tudor dynasty#Move?. OCNative (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Excuse me, but what is this suppose to be?

You have recently reverted one of my edits. I changed the image in an article. Your reason was "(rv sock of indefinitely blocked User:LouisPhilippeCharles)". This is a link : [[6]]. Am I accused of being a sock-puppet of LouisPhilippeCharles? I have been a member of wikipedia since 2006, while LouisPhilippeCharles became a member in 2009. This is a serious accusation from your part, and I would like an explanation. What is the ground for such an accusation? Am I to understand, that all users and IP:s, who have the same intererests as LouisPhilippeCharles, should be pointed out as his puppets? That would in fact mean that no one would be allowed to edit articles of royalty and nobility in history withouth being accused of being LouisPhilippeCharles and have their edits removed, which would be a serious threat to wikipedia's development. This is particularly insulting, as I myself have been in disagreement with LouisPhilippeCharles, and are still forced to revert changes he makes with his various IP:s. I would like an explanation. --Aciram (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You have also reverted some of my edits after or before LouisPhilippeCharles edited on the page. Learn to revert correctly please; it's all recorded in the articles' revision history.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not about reverting another users edit. This is about accusing someone of being a sockpuppet, which was the reason he gave to revert my edit. To revert an edit is not nearly as serious as accusing someone for being a sockpuppet, which is the case here. That is also recorded in the articles' revision history. I have never reverted your edits by claiming that you are a sockpuppet. Learn the difference, please. This is a serious accusation. --Aciram (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

FactStraight, I have now looked more closely to your edit. It seems, as though you are making a large number of revertions of edits on articles of royalty with the reason: "(rv sock of indefinitely blocked User:LouisPhilippeCharles)". This accusation may thereby not have been directed toward me in particular. It is possible, that you belived you were reverting someone else, or that you were reverting my edits simply because you suspected some one of the edits before mine where made by LouisPhilippeCharles. If that is so, you may ignore my misunderstanding above. Nevertheless, it does seem to be somewhat of an exhageration to assume that nearly every IP or user with the same interests as LouisPhilippeCharles is in fact him/her. It can do nothing more than damage the work on the articles of royalty and nobility in history, for which I also hapen to have an interest.--Aciram (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize to you and Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy for accidentally reverting edits to articles of yours. In all of these cases, you will find that I was reverting edits made to royalty/nobility articles by a repeat vandal with whom you are both very familiar -- he is so notorious that he has been banned globally, that is, from all versions of Wikipedia because he has a lengthy track record of vandalizing hundreds of royalty articles on different Wikipedias (he first came online in '06, not '09, but under different names); many, if not most, of his vandalizing edits remain unreverted because doing so would be almost a fulltime job (for example, he re-named all of the Dukes of Montbazon as Princes of Guéménée, even though the dukedom was the House of Rohan's main modern title historically -- but the princedom is simply the title LouisPhilippeCharles prefers. Another instance is the many cases where he changed titles of members of the House of Merode to Mérode, even though properly there is no accent in Merode). In every case, I have reverted his edits after first reporting them to SPI and requesting that they block his latest sockpuppet and revert the edits he made using that sockpuppet. Although they do block his sockpuppets, sometimes they revert his edits and sometimes they don't. But my experience with this vandal is that he continues to edit despite being banned because he knows that some of those edits are overlooked and others are defended by people who don't understand that a blocked user's edits are vandalism and should be deleted automatically -- even if the edit is otherwise a good edit. The sooner the vandal realizes that his edits will not be tolerated, and will always be deleted from Wikipedia, the more likely he is to realize that he is wasting his time by trying to edit Wikipedia while blocked (he has been repeatedly urged to seek lifting of the block -- but a pre-condition for un-blocking is that he refrain from editing with sockpuppets for 6 months, which he refuses to do). So when the admin fails to revert the sockpuppet vandalism, I try to clean out the vandalizing edits. Very often when I go in to correct the article I discover that he has made previous edits to that article under other sockpuppets, so I also revert those. Because some of those edits were made weeks or months ago, other edits have been made to the article since then, including some by the two of you. I try to clean up the articles while leaving those edits for the most part, but because there are so many reverts, I sometimes make mistakes. I will try to be more careful, but I also ask that you try not to add edits after his -- which are usually obvious because the kind of changes he makes to royalty articles fit an identifiable pattern. Instead, please report the sockpuppetry by adding the suspected IP here, so that the vandalism can be stopped quickly and mistakes are avoided. Thank you for your understanding. FactStraight (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I do have a tip for you concerning this matter. You ask for help in identifying the edits of a certain blocked editor. I advice you to put the article Duchess Maria Anna Josepha of Bavaria on you watch list. The blocked editor in question often returns to this article; he/she removes predecessor and successor from the box, because she/he dislikes the succession of consorts, and this article seems to have been chosen to for the purpose of enforcing this view. Look at the articles edit history, and you will see this. I hope this tip can be of some help. I do believe it will. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

SVG Version of Spanish Royal Consorts with ornaments

Hello I've uploaded the arms of the royal consorts with ornaments. I've use references Can you tell me the reason you to consider to remove these coats from the articles? Thanks you Sorry for my English I'm learning it. --Heralder (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That deletion was accidental. My apologies. FactStraight (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

OOps....

Sorry, I didn't intentionally revert you at Talk:Albert II, Prince of Monaco, I accidentally hit the wrong button while contemplating adding something about the dire state of condom quality in Monaco.... - Nunh-huh 02:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hee hee! No problem. I'm sure some outraged soul will be trying to delete us both -- heedless of the fact that there's a much more "stigmatizing" word that could legally be applied than "illegitimate"... FactStraight (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, throughout history there have been royal b....abies. In this case, I suppose serene b....abies..... - Nunh-huh 02:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

image?

Bonsoir.

Je voudrais savoir, s'il vous plaît, pourquoi vous avez supprimé mes modifications des illustrations concernant Louise Marguerite de Lorraine, Princesse de Conti ? Ma photo est pourtant de bien meilleure résolution, taille et netteté, et est d'ailleurs en passe d'obtenir le label d' " image de qualité" sur "Commons". Merci.--Jebulo (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

David Bagration of Mukhrani

Why did you revert my edits and why do you think I'm a sockpuppet? --Kimon^talk 00:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edits unintentionally. I wanted to swiftly revert the edits of User:12.28.236.6 who is a sockpuppet of TFoxworth, a vandal who has been banned for years from Wikipedia, but who periodically returns to vandalize certain articles (particularly those having to do with the House of Romanov and the Bagrationi dynasty). The quicker he is reverted the sooner he realizes that his return is futile because his edits will not be allowed to endure. Unfortunately, you had edited the article after him, so that in order to revert him quickly I unintentionally reverted your edits as well. I apologize. FactStraight (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem - I'll edit the article and re-introduce my changes. --Kimon^talk 14:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what was the vandalism you identified so, could you please take a look at this edit and tell me what's wrong? Alternatively, you can restore that version and make the requisite edits yourself. --Kimon^talk 21:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted this edit by a sock of Tfoxworth. I didn't even look at the content of his edit: a banned user is not allowed to edit Wikipedia, regardless of what changes he makes. Since your edits were added after his, I accidentally deleted them. FactStraight (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Another sock?

Whenever I see an IP reverting a lot of your edits and only doing that, I pretty much assume it's a sock of TFoxworth. In this case it's 71.35.17.152. I reverted all their edits but since you're the expert on TFoxworth I though I'd let you know what was going on. SQGibbon (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It quacked most convincingly and has been blocked accordingly. Favonian (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You're both right -- and thanks! FactStraight (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

User moving French royal articles

For instance: Talk:Henri_d'Orléans,_count_of_Paris#Move_to_.22Henri_d.27Orl.C3.A9ans.2C_count_of_Paris.22. Is there any issue with this? Seven Letters 14:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. SudoGhost 22:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Youre vandalising our article on Sicilian Nobility

Caro Signore, My colleague Sven (Italian-royalty) who originally penned the article on Sicilian Nobility and i have spent 14 months investigating contemporary aristocracy in Sicily. I would appreciate it that at this point, as i have allowed several of your edits, that you would leave our article alone in its present state. It was approved by two separate administrators and i have no desire of getting into an "edit war" with you. I see you are engaged in several and have been blocked from editing by wikipedia on multiple occasions for a habit of heavy handed editing. The adjustments you made re Infante Carlos are acceptable and we will allow them to remain however i would appreciate it if you would cease from deleting the names of the existing families we have interviewed. As a uomo Siciliano who has travelled the world as an ambassador to our great land, someone that UNDERSTANDS our way of life and history, i find it utterly appalling that you feel the need to revise our history. You have deleted parts that you may not see as important however for those of us in southern Italy that monitor and write about the lives and habits of contemporary aristocracy your actions amount to vandalism. Of the 32 Baroni that I interviewed only 3 wanted their names in print. Three! Because of the stigma attached to sicilian aristocracy. The rest cling tightly to their anonymity and i have had to respect that in my writing, however for us to progress as a people we need the names of our great families to live on. Our island has been stripped of its tradition since the second world war. Academics at the University of Catania are trying to restore the respect our island warrants but its hard when so many of our aristocracy live in secrecy. For us to be able to name and identify the few brave souls who have allowed us to speak and write of their lives is of paramount importance to our struggle. For you then to censor this is criminal and yes it is my humble opinion, it also reeks of racism. Contemporary aristocracy is of the utmost importance to our island and sense of self and by omitting the names of the few living Barons we have left you are censoring us as a people. Information regarding existing barons needs to be collected and presented especially in the information age. Why do you feel the need to omit Baron Serramarrocco quando il suo nome e is an important part of our history and contemporary life! To delete all traces of what remains of our fragmented aristocracy, as you have done so insensitively, reeks of censorship and a bias against southern italians. It is a blatant attack on our culture and deliberate revision of our history. Youve also added some information to the text without citing your source material. You say "most" when in fact the vast majority of l'aristocrazia siciliana have in fact left. I have spoken with almost 3 dozen families in the last year and a half and the vast majority have in fact left Sicily for greener pastures. Yet you say "most" have remained. Can you please give me the names and phone numbers of even 5 families where the heir has remained in Sicily.I see that you are an american. Do yo speak Italian? Have you been to il circhio bellini? Have you seen any of the primary source material in catania & Siracusa?Have you even been to Sicily?.....I have no issues leaving some of the information you added re Infante Carlos but to erase information drawn from months of painstaking research that my colleague, students and i have spent so much time working for the sake of editing others articles is criminal. I am sorry if i am acting in a hostile manner however this is my passion and to see our work destroyed and my culture trampled on by a narrow vision of what our article should look like and blatant cultural imperialism pains me. If you do not cease from damaging our article i will file a formal complaint with wikipedia. I will demonstrate how your revisions only serve as disruptions. This is evidenced by your being blocked from editing so many articles and the fact that youre in "editing wars", something i read about for the first time this afternoon, with so many good people on this site. At this point lasciaci stare or I will file a formal complaint. p.s. I dont want to be confrontational so I adjusted the article in a manner i thought youd deem more suitable, only mentioning specific Baroni when relevant.I think it works well now and would appreciate it if you would leave our article alone. As i said we do not use wikipedia and have no intention of ever writing another article for wiki thanks to your heavy handed meddling. So i suppose you accomplished one thing; another Italian scholar will refrain from contributing to wiki due to heavy handed culturally imperialistic meddling-something i will be going into in great detail if i need to make a formal complaint. Salve!

Fabrizio Parisi Professore di Storia e Filosofia Catania — Preceding unsigned comment added by FabrizioParisi (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

LPC/Marie Antoinette

Thanks for the heads up. I was rather suspicious about it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:George VI

In case you didn't notice, I replied to your comment and suggested that you move/repeat it under the new move request that I started.--Kotniski (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

marie jeanne

what is the issue having her own monogram on her page? why remove dates of birth/death of several people!? This is an encyclopedia and you are making yourself look like an idiot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.109.33 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Prince du sang

Hi FactStraight, I was wondering why you rv it as an inappropriate link. Lotje ツ (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Because "Mariage" is much too broad an article to link prince du sang to. Virtually no one who is interested in reading about "marriage" is likely to have an interest in the marriages of the long-extinct, very small group of marriages contracted by princes du sang. Therefore, it is inappropriate to link to that topic. FactStraight (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I figured it out when I looked at your latest edits. Thanks for your kind help Lotje ツ (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Dukes of Loulé

Hi FactStraight. I've asked Lumastan (talk · contribs) to discuss his edits and in particular his infobox for Dukes of Loulé which you reverted as misleading. He did start the discussion on Talk:Dukes of Loulé but since I'm not sure you have the page watchlisted, I thought I'd let you know. Best, Pichpich (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

If you haven't noticed, you've been making some personal attacks against me, which can be deleted under WP:NPA. For the sake of etiquette, do you object if I delete them? I shall retain your points, carefully removing only those phrases which constitute an attack against my character. If you have problems with my behavior, please write them on my talk page, not on article talk pages. Emerson 07 (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

marie-louise-elisabeth d'orléans duchess of Berry

By reverting you are doing nothing to improve the piece. The biography of the duchess of Berry has its dark sides. Her hidden pregnancies are well known, even Saint-Simon mentions she had numerous affairs and was found to be pregnant at her autopsy, just 3 months after her scandalous confinement at the Luxembourg. The accusations of incest should also be mentioned and open to debate. In historical terms the portrait of the Duchess in the satirical songs is also significant. Like during the French revolution sex and politics were intertwined and should at least be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerecinski (talk • contribs) 11:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Reverting - History is not hagiography You are really a nuisance. Your reverting is just plain irrational censorship. It is most annoying when you are dealing with a history that you clearly do not know well nor care to investigate about. History also includes rumors, especially when dealing with XVIIIthe century France ! Biography should not be confused with hagiography. Just reverting brings no satisfaction to anyone. Votre attitude est indigne d'un historien ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerecinski (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

aerecinski not LouisPhilippeCharles

Dear Sir, I am new to en.wiki yes indeed but I have nothing to do with LouisPhilippeCharles or any of your wiki archenemies and am not at all a royal family or royal genealogy buff. I'm interested in cultural history and fascinated with XVIIIth century France, especially the Regency. The Duchess of Berry is a very odd and fascinating character. The paragraphs I edited for wiki ARE referenced... as you know very well. I quote my sources and they are well known. The present page on the Duchess of Berry is largely incomplete and misleading since it makes no mention at all or hardly of her very bad reputation and just turns her biography into a generic royal family (somewhat tragical) life story. If you feel the paragraphs should be referenced differently you could have marked them as needing footnotes or whatever... Simply reverting and persisting on doing so brings nothing at all to the page. AerecinskiAerecinski (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If I inadvertently identified you as indefinitely blocked but recurrent LouisPhilippeCharles, I apologize and appreciate your advising me of the error. Two problems remain. First, on Wikipedia, you are expected to give precise citations for allegations when they are legitimately requested. You state that "The paragraphs I edited for wiki ARE referenced... as you know very well. I quote my sources and they are well known." When I reverted your edits after you restored them, I referred to the talk page for explanation of what was needed, stating "Please do not continue to edit these rumors into the article unless they are properly sourced with inline citations." Inline citations are footnotes to a specific page in a reliable source that others can go to and verify the accuracy of what you've posted. This has not been done, and another editor has again reverted your edits for that reason. Please see Inline Citation. Secondly, much of the language used in your edits is unencyclopedic and won't remain even if properly cited. We don't say, e.g., "Always very respectful to the House of France, Dangeau pretended not to know the real nature of that illness. For the sick princess was really suffering the pains of labour. The merry young widow had been hiding her pregnancy until she reached her term." Here, you have given your opinion of Dangeau's habits, and you have used that as a basis to draw a conclusion about what he knew and pretended not to know. The phrase "...merry young widow" is simply unencyclopedic unless it is a direct quote from a reliable source, properly footnoted. And even such a quote could be subject to removal if challenged on the grounds that it draws excessive attention to an aspect of the subject. I regret that this exchange has not hitherto been more collegial and, in the light of this clarification, I look forward to mutual efforts to improve this and other articles. FactStraight (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Nicolas, Duke of Mercœur, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Regency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

John I, Duke of Saxony (1249 – 1285)

FactStraight, on 18 November I edited this page so that the children of John were listed in chronological order, then you subsequently undid it. This seemed like a perfectly reasonable change to make, so please explain to me your objection! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skidmore (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspected that the edit was made by an anonymous sockpuppet of someone who was editing Wikipedia using more than one account. FactStraight (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Almanach de Gotha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Precedence, La Rochefoucauld, Porcia, Furstenberg, Croy, Merode, Equal marriage, Wettin and Murat

Alexandra von Fürstenberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Miller sisters

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

user:Aerecinski

Judging from user:Aerecinski's lack of sources and statements like this, "unavowed Censorship : read the paragraphs you fully deleted and you'll find the French sources !!, it would probably be prudent to report him/her to the edit-warring board. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I will support such a step if he reverts again. The board probably won't act on "old" edits, when there have been two intervening edits expanding on his insertion of POV gossip. BTW, contrary to what he believes, I don't object to the "scandalousness" of her life, but to his failure to give us page cites where we can verify them, and to his gossipy rather than encyclopedic style for description. FactStraight (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree about the citations. You wouldn't happen to know anything about John "the Fearless", Duke of Burgundy and his descendants, would you? A recent edit to Antipope Felix V and the corresponding "reference" is somewhat questionable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Afraid I'm not much use once you go back before the 16th century. But this filiation is so unlikely as to be completely lacking in credibility. First, its cited as the acnestry of a current American amateur genealogist, and is actually linked to his RootsWeb page -- almost always a sign of over-eager ancestral ambition. Secondly, the claim is that his ancestor, Wilhelm van der Haegan (c.1435-1510) was a wealthy Flemish entrepreneur who not only traded internationally -- but immigrated with wife and family to the Azores, where he island-hopped until his death. So far, plausible if historically insignificant. But it's claimed that this Haegan was the bastard son of John of Burgundy, Bishop of Cambrai, himself a bastard son of John II the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy (1371-1419). It is extremely unlikely that this royal background, even if double-sinistered, yielded a "wealthy entrepreneur" willing to move his family from a region where their prestige and resources were maximized, to a barely populated archipelago prior to Columbus's discovery of America. But that is not completely impossible. What is impossible, is that this double-bastard trader could have, at the age of 19, taken as wife Margarita of Savoy, aged 16, daughter of the future Anti-pope and reigning Duke of Savoy by Princess Marie of Burgundy -- and that he persuaded she and her family to allow him to move her and their children to settle a Portuguese colony! Royal male bastards may become adventurers or traders on the edge of the known world; royal Euro-princesses in the 1400s -- never. FactStraight (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have missed the part that stated Willem's father was John, bishop of Cambrai. That and the fact this information is not found anywhere else would disqualify the source from any type of genealogical reliability. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct your own mistakes retard.

Correct your own mistakes retard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.64.11 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Our favourite battleground

Regarding the template:

1. Marie de Bourbon is irrelevant as she, married the son of a king.
2. Links to Francoise of Lorraine
3. Françoise d'Alençon dead before the rank was even created. Same for Jeanne d'Albret, Queen of Navarre.
4. Marie d'Estouteville married into the Longueville line.
5. de Lorraine-Guise, of Lorraine. Did you not argue for this yourself in previous cases?
6. Françoise d'Orléans-Longueville? Mademoiselle de Longueville is acceptable.
7. Link to Claire-Clémence de Maillé-Brézé.
8. Marie Thérèse de Bourbon-Condé? Look at the link.
9. Capitalisation of légitimée de France.
10. Françoise Marie de Bourbon was a grand daughter of France NOT a princess of the blood
11. Marie Anne de Bourbon-Conti?
12. Louise Élisabeth de Bourbon-Condé? Look at the link.
13. Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti? Look at the link.
14. Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre? Look at the link.

Why make everything an arguement. The rank was created during the reign of Henri IV to ensure that fellow Bourbon's could have a hight rank than that of mere nobles. Blocked or not, this is an anonymous IP and people can still make contributions. Signatures are a clear indication of what ones name was. It is not difficult to understand. Grow up. Why edit an encycopedia when you clearly maintain on using the wrong information.

Signed, The Infamous, yet correct, LouisPhilippeCharles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.64.11 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Grow up

Goshthisisstupid (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited Princess Isabelle of Orléans-Braganza, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Adam Czartoryski and Attersee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding LouisPhilippeCharles' wikilink

Thank you for your explanation to why it was necessary for you to delete the wikilinks he made to Hedvig Catharina De la Gardie. However, that article actually excists also in Italian language wikipedia: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedvig_Catharina_De_la_Gardie - and thereby it should be linked. How should that problem be solwed? It must after all be linked. Would it be correct if I made the wikilink? --Aciram (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I have no problem with it being linked (although, please note that this vandal is globally banned from all Wikipedias -- not just English Wikipedia, because he has done the same thing to royalty and nobility articles on several non-English Wikis). But we should delay the link a few days and then, please feel free to add it back. The point is to prevent LouisPhilippeCharles proving that, if he continues to try, he can pit one Wiki editor against another and get his edits retained on Wikipedia. He must learn that, as long as he is indefinitely blocked, his edits, whether good or bad, will always be deleted eventually. He could get un-blocked by abstaining from editing Wikipedia completely, including anons and socks, for six months -- but he is too addicted to editing royalty articles to stay away more than a day or two at a time. One day he will give up -- if we don't give up first. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. I understand perfectly, and I will act accordingly. It is difficult for me to identify this user, but I shall try to keep this in mind for the future, if you revert a seeminlgy good edit, and assume that this is the explanation. Thank you for informing me about the correct way of adressing this. I will add the appropriate links myself in a few days. --Aciram (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see:

• User talk:HammyDoo#Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
• User talk:Templatier#Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

Have a look through the edit histories of the two new editors because I think you will find them interesting and possibly familiar. -- PBS (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Follow up: Both of them have been blocked as sock-puppets of LouisPhilippeCharles by DrKiernan who saw this edit and looked at the history of the page. -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#LouisPhilippeCharles -- PBS (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. When you recently edited Treaty of Georgievsk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batoni (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. When you recently edited Stéphanie de Lannoy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fl and Hainaut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision?

Why this Undid revision 493121669 by 85.178.237.126 in the article Philippe, Duke of Vendôme? greetings --85.178.237.126 (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No explanation for edit in edit summary. FactStraight (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous reason. I have seen many pictures and commonscats set in the English Wikipedia and have never experienced a deletion. You triest not what you delete? --85.178.226.114 (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

When an anonymous poster who has never used the account to post before suddently makes an edit that only experienced editors know about, I suspect that the poster is violating Wikipedia's rules by maintaining more than one account. And when that user complains about the deletion on my talk page -- but has still not used that account to post other edits -- I am even more suspicious. If you don't want your edits deleted, explain them. FactStraight (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm logged in as an IP only because my Wikimedia Commons account to EN-WP does not work. In all other languages ​​my user name logged-korrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.236.183 (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Enredados

Regards this edit it is unclear to me do you think that User:Enredados is a sock of user:Tfoxworth? I thought it might be a sock of User:LouisPhilippeCharles. See my comment User talk:Enredados. Could Tfoxworth and LouisPhilippeCharles be one and the same? -- PBS (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. The edit above is me deleting an edit by an anon used by LouisPhilippeCharles on the grounds that he is indefinitely blocked, so all of his edits are subject to automatic deletion without regard to content: His usual M.O. is to make "constructive" edits (typos, factual corrections, etc) along with his substantive edits highlighting royal trivia, hoping that admins and royalty editors agree that his "improvements" are warranted, and reverse my deletions thereof -- thereby pitting me against them and keeping his edits intact in defiance of the block. User:Enredados may be another sock of LouisPhilippeCharles, but regardless continues to make hundreds of edits without citations, and so they're subject to deletion. Because I wasn't sure if he's a sock, I didn't at first delete them. But his edits under anons like User:83.52.122.77 proliferated and Enredados stopped confining their edits to the Ruspoli family, adding unsourced changes to unrelated royalty articles -- indistinguishable from those of LouisPhilippeCharles. LouisPhilippeCharles is an English university student, user:Tfoxworth posts from the States but hasn't vandalized Wikipedia lately. The latter was, unfortunately, ill-treated by some other posters when he first boldly edited Wikipedia royalty articles, lashed out in response, and began vandalizing out of protest against being indef blocked. LouisPhilippeCharles is a royalty trivia buff for whom editing articles about them on Wikipedia is a consuming addiction (otherwise he would have stayed away long enough to get unblocked). He's banned, as you know, not only on English Wikipedia, but from most Euro wikies because of his POV edits and disregard for Wiki policies. It is the proliferating vandalism of LouisPhilippeCharles that can be reduced by blocking his socks and anons. So thanks. FactStraight (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverting

Probably not I respect what you're saying, but if a blocked/banned user takes my revert as some kind of implicit endorsement of his actions, that just means that he doesn't get it and needs to understand. Since that line of argument won't be effective toward him getting unblocked/unbanned, then he will also learn that if he tries to use that line of reasoning. If anything, I feel like this can only be a positive, honestly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

How do you say 'Quack' in French?

I think we have a DUCK loose on History of the French line of succession, but I am out of reverts. I assume you had a reason for suggesting a sock - one good enough to take to WP:SPI, and to earn temporary semi-protection? Agricolae (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI case and would appreciate you comments on the original revert. Agricolae (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

R&N Userbox

Hello, FactStraight! You can add the new userbox for the Royalty & Nobility taskforce, {{User WikiProject Royalty and Nobility}}, to your userpage! - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Electoral and Palatinate edits

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Hmm. Hundreds of edits to articles since January, all trying to change the way that English refers to the Palatine lands of electors and to the titles of the various Counts and Princesses Palatine? Made by User:-Ilhador- -- and many anons? And, curiously, also made recently by User:HammyDoo; like this one and this one and this one. HammyDoo admitted on his talk page, before being blocked for sockpuppetry and vandalism, that he wants his old account as LouisPhilippeCharles un-blocked because half of his edits have been reverted. And let's not ignore the blocked sock of LouisPhilippeCharles who showed the same pre-occupation with the same Palatine family of royals, Moonpig12345, who got reverted for it here. Why hello, LouisPhilippeCharles! I've been wondering where the other half of your unconstructive edits were hiding. Now I know... FactStraight (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring against -Ilhador-

While I do understand that you think -Ilhador- is a sock of LPC, and that you would be exempted from Edit warring restrictions if he was, I must ask you to stop until a reasonable connection can be made to LPC. I have left further comment on LPC's SPI and I will try to help you resolve this as fast as possible. In the mean time, you need to stop reverting him, or I can not protect you from a block. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not "LouisPhilippeCharles"; I haven't the slightest idea who or what that is

The edits I made to Alfonso XII and Luis Mayans y Enriquez de Navarra were completely accurate; here is the genealogical website that shows the ancestry of Enrique Puigmolto y Mayans: http://ortizdepinedo.com/f3753.htm#f20939 A simple google search will show the alleged father of Alfonso was named Puigmolto y Mayans. I am a genealogist and an historian (one of my favorite books, one I have owned and read for 10 years now, is Lines of Succession by Jiri Louda and Michael Maclagan, among other genealogy books and sources), and I realize I may have made those edits rather unorthodoxly; but I assure you they are accurate, regardless; there was no such man as "Enrique Puig y Molto." Seeing that inaccurate info in Alfonso's biography is disturbing to this historian-genealogist! (and I've no idea what source is used to say his father may have been an American dental student-when I first read that I was taken by surprise!) I did not log in to my wikipedia account when I made the edits, that is why my IP address was, and is showing. And I can assure you I am not "LouisPhilippeCharles" or whoever or whatever that character may be. Hopefully this message clears up what seems to be a terrible confusion! (I am still somewhat of a novice in editing wikipedia, so I apologize for any harm I may have caused or I continue to be caused! I have quite a knowledge of history and genealogy, and I just wanted to help out!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.33.104 (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. FactStraight (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nor am I louisphillipecharles

So do not accuse me of sockpuppetry. Judging by your edit history, you seem to think that every other editor on wiki is a sock of this guy.89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for that error. FactStraight (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusations AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

FactStraight, the specific issue is that it is being asked whether or not you throw around the accusation of sockpuppetry too freely. I appreciate the trouble you've had with LouisPhillipeCharles and his army of socks, but I'm worried your ability to discern non-ducks from ducks is being affected by the long-running issues with LPC. I hope you participate in the discussion at AN/I, because what I've seen has made me more worried for you than about you. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the AN/I thread has been archived, I just want to follow up by saying that I think your proposed compromise is an excellent and elegant solution. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Gonzalo, Duke of Aquitaine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huntington Hotel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles monomania ?

LouisPhilippeCharles everywhere ? Who's this elusive character ? Your mischievous Doppelganger ? It seems you're seeing LPC everywhere and have much fun in reverting texts by other editors when they don't suit your hagiographic style of writing. This practice is close to sheer vandalism. When a text is properly written with the required sources why revert it ? You seem so fond of "decent" royal families narratives. Fine but but well, History is not hagiography !!! Read the Letters of the Princesse Palatine and you'll see much of what she wrote really ran against the grain of "decency" common to much of 17th-18th centuries court literature. AE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerecinski (talk • contribs) 22:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Sir, Judging by your edit history, you seem to think that every other editor on wiki is a sock of LPC. You dare talk of uncivil behavior but how should one qualify your stubborn reverting and total lack of dialogue when anything written by someone else in the articles that you seem to consider your property goes beyond the limits of your hagiographic type of writing ? Your visions of a biography and what should be in it are it seems mostly determined by this very narrow vision of what's "proper" i.e. Victorian inspired genealogical writing. You don't seem to care at all about the time invested by other editors in writing their texts... that seems to be totally out of your concerns. So please do not talk again about "civil" behavior... for there is really nothing civil in your attitude. Aerecinski to StraightFact (alias LouisPhilippeCharlesFoe ?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerecinski (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Aerecinski "source"

Per this edit[7], user:Aerecinski uses this source,"Correspondance de Madame duchesse d'Orléans. Extraite des lettres publiées par M. de Ranke et M. Holland. Traduction et notes par Ernest Jaeglé. A, Quantin, Paris, 1880, vol.2, pp. 133-137[8]

Do you see anything that supports the addition of this sentence,"Notoriously promiscuous, the young widowed princess had hidden several pregnancies and the autopsy revealed her to be again with child, only three months after suffering a very laborious delivery. Elisabeth Charlotte was infinitely pained by Berry's death and horrified by what she learned of her debauchery.??

Since this is a primary source, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.(original research) which is not itself explicitly contained in the primary source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not seen anything beyond the citation of the primary source, so if that quote is not contained therein, it sounds like original research whose inclusion in the article is not justified. Thank you for bringing that point to my attention. FactStraight (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but go back to the Elizabeth Charlotte wiki piece : it is very poorly referenced in general and if I had more time I would rewrite entirely and give it the proper historical sources it requires. Encyclopedia doesn't mean cheap generic standardized poorly informed writing. You don't have to be a specialist to read the Palatine letters since we are not talking here about "the original letters" but a well-commented edition of a selection of the letters. And since I wanted this section to be brief I didn't quote well known biographies on the Palatine, eg. by Arlette Lebigre "La princesse Palatine" (1986) who makes exactly the same comments about Berry's death. So, no sorry there is no "original research" in this short paragraph on Berry's death which just summarizes a very well-known story... at least for people who know that period of Frenc history and have read about the French Regency....which doesn't seem to be the case for you and "Kansas Bear"... Aerecinski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerecinski (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

I have added the comments on the discussion page. Please remove the inaccuracies in the article. Please help the assessment of the Shah's regime from a liberal democratic view point. Shah's fascism was responsible for the extreme reactions towards the opposite side in today's Iran. Only a balanced liberal democracy can help Iran and the world. Artaxerex (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate and share your commitment to "a liberal democratic view point". But Wikipedia's policies on balance, fairness and neutrality do not allow us to impose judgment from that sole perspective on articles. My edit did not remove your substantive assessment of the Shah's regime, but made sure that other interpretations are not excluded. FactStraight (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Rainier III

Hi, FactStraight,

Just as something to consider: I'm not entirely sure that describing Rainier III as being of French, Mexican, Spanish, German, Scottish, English, Dutch, and Italian ancestry isn't a bit misleading. It suggests a sort of equality of ancestors between the various nationalities that doesn't exist: for example, his "Mexican" ancestry consists only of a grandmother born in Mexico to Spanish parents. He has a great-grandmother born on Martinique; we ignore that; his mother was born in Algeria, yet we don't list his ancestry as Algerian; he's a Merode descendant yet we don't mention Belgium. Nor do we bother to mention the fact that some of his ancestors were born in Monaco! Perhaps a better formulation could be devised? Something like "Rainier III has ancestors born in France, England, Spain, Germany (Baden), Mexico, Belgium, Scotland, The Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Algeria, Monaco, and Martinique." (And I think we have to reach Sosa # 433 before we encounter an ancestor actually born in the Netherlands.) One wonders where to stop, of course, and how significant the information is in any case... - Nunh-huh 03:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing relevant information to my attention with respect to the recent Rainiar III edits. I responded to the fact that in a list of national ancestries, it appeared that the only one being deleted was the non-European ancestry. Since racial attitudes were and are relevant to social status, and the article provides Rainiar's ancestry because monarchs are traditionally at the apex of hereditary status in the Western social hierarchy, I would deem evidence of possible non-European ancestry in a Euro monarch notable. But in this case, had the background you provide accompanied the edit, I might have left a citation request instead of reverting. I like the list of ancestral birth sites you suggest as a more precise alternative. FactStraight (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, if there were genuine non-European ancestry I'd be right there with you! I think part of my problem with the original formulation is that it suggests Mexican ethnicity rather than mere citizenship. So I will add the change to the article as less misleading in that respect, though perhaps too much information :) - Nunh-huh 00:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Alessandro Torlonia, 5th Prince of Civitella-Cesi

On Alessandro Torlonia, 5th Prince of Civitella-Cesi, I've removed the "morganatic marriage" category. Your edit summary ("his kids by Infanta had no rights to Spanish throne") may be perfectly true (I believe that she renounced her rights of succession), but that wouldn't per se make this a morganatic marriage. A morganatic marriage is one where the children cannot inherit the husband's titles (and generally can inherit a title granted to the wife upon marriage). That the marriage was not morganatic can be seen by the fact that a child of the marriage succeeded to the father's title of Prince of Civitella-Cesi! Of course, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if you have some information to the contrary. - Nunh-huh 10:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

On the general issue of morganatic marriage: the prevalent notion in English-language sources that a morganatic marriage was between a titled man and an untitled woman, denying she and their progeny his status and titles is overly narrow. First, morganatic marriage is not a gender-specific concept. if children can inherit (non-monetary valuables) from a female but are deprived of that inheritance because the marriage fails to meet family norms, it meets the criteria for morganatic marriage: Famous examples of morganatic husbands are Count Adam von Neipperg and Agustín Fernando Muñoz, 1st Duke of Riánsares. Secondly, morganatic marriage usually refers to dynastic inheritance only -- not money (except civil list), not private property, and not mere noble titles. Principe di Civitella Cesi is a title of the nobility, so of course progeny wouldn't forfeit it by their parents' marrying morganatically, even if it were the Principe (rather than the Infanta) marrying in defiance of family norms. Thirdly, the consequences of morganatic marriages vary widely from dynasty to dynasty, country to country and era to era, so it isn't true that morganatic issue are always denied the dynastic parent's title: Princess Alexandra of Greece, Prince Alexander of Belgium, Prince Frederick Henry of Nassau and Prince Pedro Gastão of Orléans-Braganza are examples of children of morganatic marriages who were allowed to bear dynastic titles -- but lacked succession rights. And what about Countess Luise Karoline von Hochberg? Never acknowledged as Grand Duchess of Baden during the reign of her husband, she is regarded as his morganatic wife -- despite the fact that her son was recognized as heir-eventual during her life-time and later succeeded as Grand Duke Leopold I. All that is clearly agreed upon is that a marriage is morganatic if at least some of the prerogatives retained by dynastic wives and offspring are denied to non-dynastic wives or offspring -- but which prerogatives has always been left up to the dynasty in question. On the specific issue of Infanta Beatriz de Borbon's marriage to Alessandro Torlonia-Civitella, the fact that she renounced her succession rights (but not her title) may seem confusing -- as though the issue have no rights because of the renunciation rather than the unequal marriage. But that isn't so because Spain's dynastic law at the time (Pragmatic Sanction of 1776) was quite specific: even when an unequal marriage is approved by the monarch, the issue are non-dynastic. No one has ever claimed that Beatriz's marriage was dynastic, or that her renunciation was for any reason but unequal marriage (the renunciations of Beatriz, her sister Infanta Maria Cristina {who married a newly-minted "Count Marone" in 1940} and of their brother, Infante Jaime, Duke of Segovia, who married the daughter of a duke in 1935, were all exacted at the time of their marriages by King Alfonso XIII in exile -- whereas no renunciation by their brother Don Juan, Count of Barcelona, who wed a dynastic Bourbon princess in 1935, was sought or obtained). Such renunciations by dynastic princesses were common in monarchies which allowed women to transmit succession rights only upon equal marriage, even if the husband had a ducal or princely title ("All members of the [Romanov] dynasty who married someone not of royal blood were obliged to sign a document renouncing their rights to the throne. Although Irina was very distant in the line of succession, she had to comply with this regulation before marrying me; but it did not seem to worry her very much." Lost Splendor by Prince Felix Yussopov, 1953, chapter XVIII). Marlene Eilers' "Queen Victoria's Descendants", 1997, pp.117-118, states "Carlos III wanted to prevent the possibility of descendants of Spanish noble families from succeeding to the throne. Because the right of succession was shared by men and women, the burden of marrying royal fell to the Infantas, as well...King Juan Carlos's two sisters, Infantas Pilar and Margarita, also lost their rights when they married members of the Spanish aristocracy. They and their aunts retained their royal status and remain members of the Spanish royal family...King Juan Carlos's cousins and nieces and nephews, are considered to be members of the king's family, but are not members of the Royal Family." And Francisco Zorrilla's Genealogia de la Casa de Borbon de Espana, 1971, pp. 204-205, states of Beatriz,"Previa renuncia a los derechos sucesorios eventuales a la Corona de Espana, caso morganaticamente en Roma en la Basilica de Santa Maria in Trastevere, el dia 14 de enero de 1935, con Don Alejandro de Torlonia, Principe de Civitella Cessi." I'll add the cites and put this notation on the talk page. FactStraight (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I still believe you've adopted an extremely broad view of what constitutes "morganatic", (having been misled by the extreme sloppiness with which it is applied by many genealogists), but I don't think it's a large enough point to fight over :). However, if you'd like to read a bit on what I consider the more accurate and nuanced view of types of marriages, dynastic and non-dynastic, you might enjoy looking at <http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/g_morganat.htm>. - Nunh-huh 01:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Hello, I'm Josh Gorand. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Josh Gorand (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. When you recently edited Princes of the Holy Roman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imperial Diet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Pedro III of Portugal

I was amazed and outraged once I learned that Qwyrxian closed the move request for Pedro III of Portugal claiming lack of consensus.[9] Twelve editors supported the move and only four opposed. I complained to him about how unfair and absurd was his action and that he should accept the will of the vast majority or at least reopen the move request. I'd like to ask you to share your thoughts about it on his talk page. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, this is a mass-produced message which means it may duplicate a message already on your Talk:page. As a result of the lack of reference to specific sources or guidelines such as WP:SOVEREIGN, User:Qwyrxian closed the RM at Talk:Peter III of Portugal but said a new RM could be started if new evidence was presented. This I have done after discussion with Qwyrxian and User:Lecen. This means that your previous support or oppose will not be counted, and must be resubmitted. However please note Qwyrxian's request that support/oppose be made with reference to specific arguments guidelines or sources, and (quote) especially recommend that people don't do the "Support per person X and Y", as such comments are close to useless, (unquote). Thanks for your time. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited House of Frankopan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages King’s College and New College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankopan Family

Please stop reverting edits on the House of Frankopan page and respect the judgment which provides authority that the present family members have the right to their names and titles. This judgment has executory force in other jurisdictions. Instead, you re-insert libellous information and reports by gossip.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Official Lists (talk • contribs) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your concerns to me on this matter. Please address them in the relevant talk page section, where specific issues have been raised and consensus can be reached, before further reverting to unsourced or inadequately sourced assertions. FactStraight (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Times link is live but a small fee must be paid to access the contents of The Times and you have to identify yourself. This link contains an apology and a clarification that the present Frankopan family has the right to their name and titles. The Italian Court relied on available genealogical tables. The princely title was confirmed by Sigismund on 21 April 1423 (Staatsarchiv, Vienna, dok.1425, 119.16) RufusR seems to have some personal problems with this family. Comment added by Official Lists (talk • contribs) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)<!

By adding 'disputed section' someone is adding a slur to the family, in spite of historical evidence. Official Lists (talk • contribs) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)<!

Stop re-inserting 'disputed section' as this is a slur on a living family. What the commentator presents as 'facts' disputing the legal rights of the present family are lies and insults, based on some personal grudge the person seems to have against this family. Comment added by Official Lists (talk • contribs) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)<!