User talk:Celia Homeford

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Celia Homeford, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quis separabit? 14:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Reid (politician born 1833)[edit]

Thanks for getting involved. I wanted to change the article name from the long-standing and easily confused Donald_Reid_(politician_born_1833) to a name that bore some link to the kind of man he was. The same can easily be done for his close relatives of the same names. It arose because the articles were written when a task force created articles for each MP and the authors knew nothing else about the individuals. So they all got the suffix politician.

My move was blocked with the template saying I was not authorised to do this and I should consult an admin or add the proposed change to the list at Requested Moves. I added the move to the list at Requested Moves and now there seems to be a mix-up. As instructed I also added the template to the unmoved talk page.

I am sure there will be a good reason but you have reverted my move to Donald Reid (businessman). Please may I know why? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If the word businessman is the problem the replacement suffix stock and station agent would be more precise though longer. Eddaido (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we need to have a proper discussion because your edit summary indicates your imperfect understanding of the situation. Eddaido (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, his son was also a stock agent (as well as a businessman) so your second suggestion is just as flawed as your first one. It isn't disambiguating. Secondly, he's famous only as a politician. He has a Wikipedia article because he was a member of parliament for 10 years, not because he was a stock agent. It is entirely incidental to his fame. The disambiguator should be something for which he is known. Thirdly, the page name was previously discussed and agreed on, so you should not be moving it against consensus. See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves for the correct process to follow. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply I hope to have time to gather all this up tomorrow. Do you live anywhere near Dunedin? Eddaido (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I asked about Dunedin because you sound like a South Islander. With a guide you can see there lots of monuments to the man. I'm still swamped so I'd suggest two things: make contact with an editor called Schwede66, he is often to be found on Wikiproject New Zealand and the other thing which might be easier is just to read the article we are talking about. Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't live near Dunedin. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi Celia Homeford. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | Talk 15:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Princess Beatrice of York[edit]

Hi Celia,

Please do not remove information on Princess Beatrice's page that I referenced and is correct. If you don't trust the Court Circular, then go online and type - princess Beatrice at garden party or at BP reception and it will bring up numerous articles like - http://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2013053012839/princess-beatrice-eugenie-garden-party-buckingham-palace/. Secondly, that knife incident is not real and was made up by Ed Sheeran according to James Blunt http://www.itv.com/news/2017-03-09/james-blunt-ed-sheeran-wasnt-cut-by-princess-beatrice-wielding-a-sword-we-made-it-up/, also that piece does not belong in her activities because it is supposed to be for those as an unofficial member of the Royal Family. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prancer16 (talkcontribs) 21:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't removed any referenced correct material from that article. I have only removed the phrase "when support is needed", which is not found in the citations in the article, which include the Court Circular. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I put when support is needed because unless you have a reason for her attending royal events when she is not a working member of the Royal Family, that is why I think she attends , as moral support for the Queen.Prancer16 (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
You need a citation for all that. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

user re-adding edits that you previously reverted[edit]

Hi Celia Homeford - I was checking out the contribution history of 175.103.25.136 (talk) due to an irrelevant edit on another page, and noticed that a few months ago you reverted some edits that IP made to the article Execution by shooting due to being a sock puppet; that IP basically re-did the edit yesterday, and seems to be making a lot of questionably irrelevant edits to other pages. Not sure if this is worth a note at WP:AIV? Either way thought I'd drop you a note. --SesameballTalk 07:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That was a sockpuppet of 120.150.30.211, who is no longer blocked so I don't think sockpuppetry would apply now. The edits should probably be assessed on their own merits. Many thanks for the note. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Chequers[edit]

The user you've encountered above seems determined to shoehorn Ali G into Chequers, despite the fact that it's utter media trivia and not even relevant to Chequers, beyond the fact that the film purports to be set there. Quite how anyone thinks the PM's security detail would have welcomed in Mr Baron Cohen and his film crew is beyond me. I'll keep an eye on it. KJP1 (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if you could advise. I've explained that the film wasn't made at Chequers; I've explained that his references didn't support his claim, and he's now re-inserted on the basis that the film purports to be set at Chequers. I've explained why this doesn't make it relevant to the Chequers article, and suggested he discuss it on the article's Talkpage before making his edit. But he won't be reasoned with, as his Talkpage amply shows. Should I raise it as an Edit war dispute? KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
It's certainly very irritating, but they haven't actually broken the 3RR rule at that page (though they did at another page a few days ago). I shall post at the article talk page in support of exclusion and with us and 'TheOldJacobite' saying the same thing, they might get the message. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Kim Labasan[edit]

This user has only made helpful edits, yet nearly all of her first edits were reverted by ClueBot (false positive) and now she is getting some flak because she started with one name and then switched to an almost identical one. Please let's avoid biting the newbies and help her with this.

Her edit history indicates that she started with one user name and then switched to the other, abandoning the first after only about 3 edits. No one would choose two nearly identical names for sock-puppetry, anyway.

Can you help explain to her what she should do about the abandoned account? Clean Copytalk 07:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This may not be a newbie. The edits are similar to 138.75.150.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (who is globally blocked) and other Singaporean IPs (like 118.189.215.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is also blocked) who have added dubious dates to royalty and papal articles without citing any source. I don't think the edits are that helpful because if I'm right and it is the same editor, most of the edits are reverted when discovered because the birth dates of these very early kings and popes are not known. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear. I checked two of the dates with the articles about the pope concerned and these conformed precisely to the dates given within those articles, so it looked like solid work. Is there any evidence that any of the edits by this particular editor are in fact dubious? Clean Copytalk 17:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'm convinced that you are right (exact dates for births of every pope in the first centuries? I don't think so) and have reverted back to the last good state. Sorry for the confusion! Clean Copytalk 17:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
FYI: @Clean Copy: Given the apparent making up of history on List of popes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and the lack of sources on other articles, it would seem that all of her edits are suspect. Opinions?
I agree; a blanket revert seems in order. Clean Copytalk 21:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Noticing most (if not all) of Kim Labasan's edits were unsourced, I reverted and warned, then I added an AIV on Kim Labasan who was blocked by Drmies. See Drmeis note here AKA Kimley Labasan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Please ping? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in a way it is reassuring that so many of us have had the same suspicion, because it reaffirms that we are right to be suspicious. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Barry Mannakee[edit]

Hi. I don't know whether you have seen the recent changes on "Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales" or not, but I just wanted to bring up this suggestion that was given by an IP user, and also ask your opinion about what he/she has said. As we already know, all of the major details about the personal lives of royal figures have been included in their articles, especially the extramarital affairs. Judging by the sources, I think it's probably important enough to be added, otherwise the Telegraph and BBC wouldn't have covered it on their news. So what do you think? Keivan.fTalk 07:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think User:Pigsonthewing may be planning to add something about the content of the tapes (judging from this edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diana,_Princess_of_Wales&diff=793055540&oldid=792673748). My only comment would be that coverage of Mannakee shouldn't be greater than the article's coverage of Hewitt or Fayed. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Rfc notice[edit]

More options have been added to the Rfc at Charles, Prince of Wales. You may want to add that article to your watchlist :) GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It's already on it! Celia Homeford (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Meghan Markle[edit]

I like your editing on the Ancestry section of this page. I have provided for you the "quote" for one UK Daily Telegraph article which has a family tree with pic of "chair" and a reference to "Hussey coat-of-arms". I think the Early Life section on this page is good now - thanks to you. Another concern in the ancestry section - do we need the quote from R. Leggitt: "This genealogy assumes that it is the same John who married Marie Wood, but there is no concrete evidence that he is the same man" ? It confused me somewhat - the "John" is NOT Lord John Hussey (mentioned in the previous sentence) but John Hussey of Dorking, proven husband of Mary/Maria Wood. They lived near Norbury and are Capt. Hussey's parents. Confusing! Thanks again - I am not a great editor (technically not savvy). Please keep an eye on the page as a lot of people HATE Meghan Markle! Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The quote isn't actually by Leggitt. It is an editorial insertion from Finton. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
More information has been added to this section and allowed the removal of superfluous material. The NEGHS have confirmed both Markle's royal descent from King Edward III and her cousinship with Prince Harry.
I do not think that there needs to be a reference of all of the past US presidents to whom Markle is a distant cousin of; this is not a genealogical journal and they should all be removed. What do you think? It is a small ancestry section. I hope you agree. user:Satyadasa makes edits in good faith, but has often placed the full arguments for and against the Lord Hussey descent. This is not necessary I feel. I am happy with the article as it now is; briefly showing both sides. I think that the "warning" tag at the top of the section should be removed - but I am not qualified to so. Cheerio and thanks Srbernadette (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I think the length is fine, but as the section is being discussed on the talk page (and removed [twice?]), I don't think it's time to remove the tag yet. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
hi please note that unfortunately the ancestry section which was becoming suitably short and precise is now banished. I think that the section should be 3 or 4 sentences like the ancestry section on Sophie, Countess of Wessex Please, I urge you to contact the editor who took the entire section out to rethink. Please comment on the talk page
We all have voiced our concern. It need only be a small section with all of The Washington Post, New York Times and UK Daily Telegraph citations. These publications have all featured Markle's white ancestry recently.  Thanks 2001:8003:4FE9:1B00:CC2F:2627:E756:1D2F (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Royal lifespans[edit]

Hi Celia, I apologize again for my error. I am glad that I caught your attention, because I see that you are interested in articles regarding the British royal family. I wanted to get your thoughts on whether this following idea would be notable. Some time ago, I completed a list in my sandbox, User:West Virginian/List of longest-living members of the British royal family, and I have been placing it on the back burner. Perhaps I’ll add the citations for their birth and death dates, write a lead, and see if it will stand. It’s trivia, but to users and editors interested in the royal family, they would definitely enjoy a list such as this. I wanted to get your take. Thanks again! — West Virginian (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

We have pages like List of British monarchs by longevity and List of centenarians (royalty and nobility), so I don't really see why this can't be moved into article space. Best wishes, Celia Homeford (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Lady Mary de Clifford[edit]

See Meghan Markle engagement of Prince Harry page. This 1911 reference - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=eyik0rO0HlsC&pg=PA351&dq=Royal+Lady+Mary+de+Clifford&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimo8HSu_vXAhVKFpQKHex6CDEQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Royal%20Lady%20Mary%20de%20Clifford&f=false - records Mary Clifford's name as Lady Mary de Clifford. I am aware that she is not an earl's daughter - but at this time, many women "of the royal court" - and her father Baron de Clifford was certainly a high-flyer at court - held the courtesy title "Lady". Shouldn't we place her correct name here? I will be checking with Gary Boyd Roberts about the matter and also asking him to correct the title - Lady Elizabeth Percy. Best 139.216.210.155 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sandringham House[edit]

Hi Celia, the Hughes portraits mentioned in the article and in the 1912 source are still in the drawing room at Sandringham as of 5th July 2015 when they were visible in the background of the pictures from the Christening of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge. Found here. Also, a previous edit of the article listed the subjects of these portraits as Queen Alexandra, the Princess Royal, Princess Victoria, and Princess Mary of Wales. The Princess Royal in question was Louise when it was linked to her aunt, Empress Frederick of Germany, as was Princess Victoria, who was again, a niece of the German Empress, formerly Victoria, Princess Royal, and Princess Maud, later Queen of Norway was linked as her sister in law Queen Mary, who never was titled "Princess Mary of Wales" rather "Mary, Princess of Wales." As the 1912 source mentions a portrait of the Queen of Norway, as well as viewing the portrait in the background of the pictures of Princess Charlotte, this is confirmation they still remain in their place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiepip (talkcontribs) 00:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Queen Louisa of Prussia's portrait[edit]

Hi, Celia. I hope I'm not disturbing you. I saw what happened with User:Huelam987 about images in Alexandra Feodorovna's article. Since the end of November I had a similar problem with him/her about the main portrait of Louise of Mecklemburg-Strelitz's page (actually pages, in every international project). I tried two times to ask him/her on Wikimedia Commons a motivation for his/her actions (he/she wants to use a 1915-postcard instead of the real portrait of the Queen; you can find details there), but he/she totally ignored me and reverted my changes. I'm a bit embarassed by this situation and actually I would like to stop being his/her “nanny” running behind him/her. Do you have an idea about how we could find collaboration with Huelam about this topic? Many thanks for your attention.--Kaho Mitsuki (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Meghan Markle[edit]

Please help again - we have the one editor - User:Surtsicna - who refuses to have both a separate ancestry section for Markle (on her page) and also states that her proven ancestors - as published in the Washington Post (page 3) and the New York Times (page 5), are only "trivia" and of no interest to anyone. This editor continues to stir up other editors. Your assistance is always appreciated. Thanks 101.182.160.40 (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

English Edits[edit]

Celia (if I may), how might I appease you while editing English articles? We seem to have our cosmetic preferences while editing, such as uppercase/lowercase infobox subjects, and then we differ fundamentally on vital information, such as an eighteenth century woman inheriting the religion of her father. - Conservatrix (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Why would you capitalise an infobox template transclusion? Just link to the template directly.
All information on wikipedia must be cited. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Personal preference on the transclusion, it appears more "tidy". Yes, though common sense maintains that she would have taken her father's religion, I will contact the Mirow parish for Charlotte's baptismal record. -Conservatrix (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

George IV of the United Kingdom[edit]

Hi Celia

Your reversion of my edit on this article is, frankly, baffling. I suggest you check the Manual of Style on the use of the terms used by other languages for names which apply to more than one country. George IV was not just king of the United Kingdom, but also of the German state of Hanover, and it is therefore perfectly appropriate that the German term is shown. Those are the the normal practices on the English Wikipedia, and have been for many years, just as it is also normal practice on the German Wikipedia to include English language terms where appropriate. As your reversion goes against the Manual of Style, it is effectively vandalism, though I accept that this was not your intent. Please withdraw your reversion immediately. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"Foreign words should be used sparingly". Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Usage in first sentence relates to relevant foreign names, i.e. "such as in an article on a person who does not themselves write their name in English". There is no need to add a foreign translation of an English person's names. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I wonder what you would consider to be a "relevant" foreign name for the ruler of a German speaking state, if not the name by which he was known in that state. He was not known as "George" there, but as "Georg", including in official communications. The fact that he was also ruler of an English speaking state is irrelevant, as is the fact that he was an English person. None of the links you provided contradict that point, and you are giving them undue relevance in trying to prove your point. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

James VI and I Religion[edit]

You may contribute to the discussion surrounding James VI and I's religion here.
- Conservatrix (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I do hope there are no hard feelings between us, Ms. Homeford. - Conservatrix (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I find that in discussions on wikipedia, I often come across the same users (because there's a core of editors all editing in the same topic area) and on some issues I will agree with some of them and on other issues I'll be disagreeing with them. I'm sure there will be issues on which we agree in the future and you should not think that disagreement on one issue will lead to disagreement on another. Feel free to call me Celia! Best wishes, Celia Homeford (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Princess Eugenie of York[edit]

I agree with you that Jack Brooksbank should be left as a link into the Brooksbank baronets page where he and his brother are specifically mentioned. Jack is reportedly "in line" to the baronetcy if his two first cousins die before him. This fact is in Burke's Peerage. Please put your thoughts forward onto the talk page and try to convince the editor milborne. Thanks. 5.51.83.82 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Henry II of England[edit]

I undid your two reverts. Please, see the article talk. Vikom (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Nominations[edit]

Celia, I come to you because it seems that you contribute most to English notables. Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz has been nominated by myself for elevation to good article status, and I have considered a featured article nomination for Catherine of Aragon. Your thoughts? - Conservatrix (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've had no involvement with those processes. If you're looking for advice, then maybe ask at the nomination talk pages? Celia Homeford (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thought you might like to follow the review process of the abovementioned article here. - Conservatrix (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales[edit]

Hi - you might want to look at the above page; since your edit on 23 April 2018, Diana's own quotes have been removed.

Your 23 April edit was far more accurate and should never have been removed.

We teach in psychology classes that Diana's childhood was - as she herself described it - "very unhappy" and "very unstable". Why was this fact removed?

We teach students that she pushed her step-mother down the stairs - as she said she did herself on tapes - which we listen to in class. This is how bad her relationship with her stepmother was at that point and it should remain in the text - as you had it yourself in your last edit.

We also listen to her in person on tape describe her relationship with Barry Mannakee and she does NOT say herself that he was a "father figure". This is incorrect. Diana's friends said that he was a father figure. Here is a portion of some of the quotes from Diana herself RE Mannakee - "He was the greatest fellow I have ever had. I was always waiting around trying to see him. Um, I just, you know, wore my heart on my sleeve. I was only happy when he was around."

I am not sure why her own quotes which describe how she herself felt about Mannakee were removed from your last edit.

Your own latest version on 23 April 2018 (not the current one) should indeed remain

175.33.22.145 (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I was surprised by the removal, but I think if you want to restore it, you should open a discussion on the talk page first. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Punctuation[edit]

Thanks for the heads up about punctuation. Just tell me and it's done, and that's what you did, so thanks. I appreciate you for taking such a strong leadership and proactive role in the Meghan Markle page. I hope to be of help, not hinderance in the maintenance of that page in the future. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Royal Titles[edit]

Hi how come you have changed the styled the titles of the royal peerages?

The reason I put the flags on them is to show what they are called in that particular territory.

Also think it is right to have each category of the Royal Dukedoms on the template.

Mr Hall of England (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

They are not called that in that particular territory.
As I explained already, you can have the sub-headings without links or the titles with links but you cannot have sub-headings with links. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Section blanking[edit]

You know section blanking under the term of 'no citations' is hardly helpful or constructive. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 08:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

So If you'd like to stop blanking them now, tag them properly for sources to be found. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 08:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
There aren't any. I already looked. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Then here you go, use this [citation needed] before section blanking. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 18:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I am familiar with it. I use it when the material being tagged is worthy of being kept but when the material is irrelevant tat that only a few fanboy obsessives care about, it's best to just remove it. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Is there any chance that you're capable of making valuable edits? Trying to imply that all the orders and medals listed are either commonwealth (Order of St Michael and St George for example) which isn't and the (Tongan Order of the Crown for example) which is but you've listed as foreign is plainly wrong. This level of hate you seem to have is honestly staggering. And do I 'fanboy'? no, do I like things to be correct? yes, are you showing things correctly? Well no. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 17:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
In the section below 'Help' You commented "I'm more concerned about you continuing to edit-war and refusing to discuss the issue" which I find amusing because your type of editing is to edit war without opting to discuss. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 17:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm coming off as harsh, but surely you can see that your edits have been unhelpful. In the first instance you removed information (without prior tagging - I recognise that its not necessary in a bio, but this is case the articles are of major interest within the commonwealth) under the basis that citations couldn't be found, this was clearly conveyed to me with your above statement of "There aren't any. I already looked". I was ultimately able to locate sources for all the information within about two days with little difficulty. I then re-categorised the honours (which was already partially done on some similar pages - in this case pages of other members of the House of Windsor) which would help people understand the difference (you included) of awards made by commonwealth countries to the members and awards made by non-commonwealth (foreign) countries, as awards by commonwealth countries usually (but not always) allow for use of post-nominal's, wear in the standard set of medals etc, which some people may not fully understand (thus coming to e.g. Wikipedia or other online encyclopedias for the answers as I did many years ago). This obviously you reverted and re-categorised the awards (mostly incorrectly - some even in two separate sections on different pages) on the basis of "Please don't use pseudo-headings. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Headings", without trying to re-do the headings to make it work (thus clearly unhelpful - which you knew would likely result in a further edit warring by not taking it to talk). Your personal snip of being a '"fanboy" I do take as highly offensive.
I considered taking this to the Admin notice board, but figured we could sort this out ourselves before making it any messier. I would ask that you explain what it is that either I or the topic has gotten you so aggressive? Until we can sort this out I have chosen to not edit any of the honours sections of the pages listed below, and until this is resolved I would ask that you do the same.
(Charles, Prince of Wales, Prince Michael of Kent, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry, Anne, Princess Royal, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Katharine, Duchess of Kent, Princess Michael of Kent.) Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The order of St Michael and St George is a Commonwealth order. Look at the list of the recipients. Most pages do not separate the other Commonwealth realms from the United Kingdom, because many honours are shared across the realms and the United Kingdom is in the Commonwealth, so it makes no sense to take it out of the Commonwealth section. I have restored the Commonwealth realms to one section and those that are not in another. This has been the standard format for years. The Queen is a foreign head of state in the Commonwealth countries that are not realms. She is the head of state and the sovereign of the orders in the realms.
You edit war across articles using deliberately sarcastic and abusive edit summaries and then post obviously satirical comments at a user's talk page and you wonder why they respond negatively. Your veiled threat to take it to the administrators' noticeboard is impotent. I think you're aware that your actions will also come under scrutiny if you did so. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
In the context of the members pages the OStMStG is listed among the British honours as its award is on the recommendation of the British PM, if for example Prince Harry was to be awarded the GCMG by the PNG PM then it would be listed in the 'Commonwealth' sub heading. The OStMStG isn't a commonwealth order on its own as it cannot be awarded in all commonwealth countries (Australia, Canada & New Zealand for example).
My inappropriate edit summaries (yes I admit they are sarcastic) was in response to your reply to me that the references didn't exist, (which I did found quite easily) and I got hot headed at your desire to delete without proper confirmation which suggested to me to be lazy editing on your behalf. The CN tag is good for telling editors that references are needed, so It's used alot on Australian biographies (with the exception of malicious content which is deleted immediately). I accept that you would have been annoyed by my edit summaries, however, I ask that you look at it from a neutral pov. You reverted/deleted content which to me came under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it especially once I located the references then you nitpicked other elements of the same and similar articles, the 'fanboy' comment seems to back that up. I also didn't make a threat of taking this to the Admin board, I said "I considered" because I believed mediation was called for by a third party under the policies and guidelines, the reason I didn't was because I was hoping we could sort this out like adults. Yes my actions would likely be put under scrutiny (which is part of the process anyway) as would yours.
I still think the standard format is to avoid an unnecessarily large number of headings by dividing the honours into home honours and honours from everywhere else and not to introduce unwieldy, unnecessary and arbitrary divisions into orders, medals and decorations from each individual type of country. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The division of honours into sub-sections for British honours (orders & medals) and Commonwealth (orders & medals) and foreign (I'm willing to concede commonwealth decorations as the Canadian Forces Decoration seems to only apply) is a far better option than incorrectly lumping awards from commonwealth countries in with the British lot. The article Anne, Princess Royal has 14 sub headings under 'Titles, styles, honours and arms' (of which as a note 8 are pseudo-headings that you seem fine with). Awards by commonwealth countries sometimes (as mentioned above) carry post-nominals (most commonly the 'CD') which aren't carried through with non-commonwealth honours. I believe there is valid argument to have the separate commonwealth sub-section which was already on some articles prior to this week put on all current and future member articles.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 09:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm not fine with those but I'm not obsessive enough to bother about them. If you're now saying that there should be three sections only then I will accept that as a compromise. It also matches Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide, which has been stable for some time but needs updating. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
That makes even less sense, in your last mass edit you removed the commonwealth sections all together under the premise that it shouldn't be there, so now are you happy to revert back to the clear standard? You seem obsessive enough to delete them all, I'm just trying for clarity, but yes, I'm happy to change to back to the style guide. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 11:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
So, I offer you a compromise and you slap me in the face. I'm saying I will accept 3 sections not the 9 you wanted to create. Please leave this talk page and don't ever come back. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi could you help me please? This is the template for current Royal Dukedoms, because I am getting rid of the redirects as I don't think we need them. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duke_of_Edinburgh&oldid=843317529 Mr Hall of England (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about you continuing to edit-war and refusing to discuss the issue, despite there being a talk page discussion and messages both on your talk page and other users' talk pages where you've raised the issue advising you to stop. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Arms of the Duchess of Cornwall[edit]

I think you shouldn't have uploaded this file because now it has become clear that the official version features the Royal Victorian order ribbon. The royal calligrapher Tim Noad had released a version of her arms featuring the circulate - [1]. The file you have uploaded is a duplicate now, thus it needs to be deleted. Keivan.fTalk 15:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that duplicates aren't necessary but both versions are official. There are two different versions of the arms: one is from 2005-2012 and the other is from 2012 onwards. We should retain both files. I don't know why everyone is so keen to delete one or the other. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

[edit]

Your efforts to abstract the ownership of royal palaces are over-stepping the mark, and you will find yourself under scrutiny at WP:COIN if it continues. Firebrace (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Take it to the noticeboards if you must, where your accusation will be rightly laughed at. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Your timecard shows that you edit exclusively in working hours Monday–Friday, never edit on evenings or weekends, and your contribution history shows that you take precisely two weeks off at Christmas, and never edit on a Bank Holiday. Are you still sure I will be laughed at? Firebrace (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Because my edits do not show any favouritism to any corporation, state, ideology or person. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
But you do edit exclusively on one subject, which is another well-known hallmark of paid editing. Still sure? Firebrace (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not being paid to edit Wikipedia. Take it to the noticeboard. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
There is absolutely no chance that you are not editing Wikipedia as part of your job. Firebrace (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Take it to the noticeboard. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

[edit]

Information icon

Hello Celia Homeford. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Celia Homeford. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Celia Homeford|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Firebrace (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I've already answered you in the section above. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I wonder why you dislike me so much? I've gone through our contributions history and there are some issues on which we've agreed and some where we have disagreed amicably. I don't see and can't recall where your hatred was born. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Celia Homeford. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Swarm 20:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

re prince harry[edit]

sorry what gives you the right to consensous the markle marriage,seems evertyone whos amending his page isin america not uk,,im a royalist,i like to see who and what is whom straight away,bot read half or at thr bottome of the page,markle is part of prince harry,HIS WIFE!.shes a duchess now,so i beg to differ !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talkcontribs) 01:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Prince Charles[edit]

Thank you for quickly rectifying your dubious error about the PoW never speaking in the chamber. If you read his speech and the subsequent ones that follow you will see that he was the first member of his family to speak in almost 100 years (seemingly since 1884)Paulharding150 (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Update - go to the fourth speech on that page (LORD WINDLESHAM) and in his second paragraph he references the date 1884.

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]

Hello Celia Homeford, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sandringham House[edit]

Many thanks indeed for sorting my MoS errors in the above. I'm thinking of taking it to FAC after a Peer Review. If you have the opportunity to comment at either, it would be very much appreciated. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And it is now at FAC, here, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sandringham House/archive1. If you were minded to offer any comments, it would be much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mary Bowes-Lion[edit]

Hello Celia Homeford. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mary Bowes-Lion, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R3 only applies to recently created and implausible redirects. Use WP:RFD if you want deletion. Thank you. ~ Amory (utc) 13:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Why didn't G7 apply? Celia Homeford (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
To quote, For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages prior to the move. Basically, redirects created as a result of a pagemove and subsequent (nomination for) deletion have been sources of abuse, so if you move a page you aren't the sole substantive creator of, R3 and G7 don't apply, and WP:RFD is the way to go. ~ Amory (utc) 13:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Celia Homeford, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules
  • New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
  • Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
  • Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
  • Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
  • The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Why the revert?[edit]

Just letting you know I undid your recent revert to Mouni; the reason is that you delivered a revert of an edit which was not vandalism without providing any explanation. Thank you! Hymnodist.2004 (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Why delete my entire revenue surplus section of the Duchy of Cornwall?[edit]

Can you provide evidence that the income from the Duchy of Cornwall was something different from what I posted 1969? If so please provide. Also, the 2008 number and the 2018 numbers were actual and nothing to do with inflation. I find it entirely rude and unproductive to completely delete a post without a discussion and sources that prove another source incorrect. We all are here to enhance one another and not completely destruct someone work.Ksk2875 (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

As I thought I'd explained, the surplus has only increased in line with inflation. The rate of return on the investments hasn't changed. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Page mover granted[edit]

Wikipedia page mover.svg

Hello, Celia Homeford. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Swarm 18:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018[edit]

Hello Celia Homeford, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Other
Moving to Draft and Page Mover
  • Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
  • If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
  • Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
  • The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
  • The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

  • Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
  • In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
  • MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
  • User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
  • User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
  • User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
  • User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
  • User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)