User talk:Mowens35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Mowens, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and manual of style pages are also useful. Feel free to experiment at the Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you have any questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Angela

Contents 1 presumptive vs. apparent 2 Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall 3 Mountbatten-Windsor 4 Re: Fawzia of Egypt / unnecessary AMBIGUITY 5 Duchess of Cornwall 6 Ingrid of Sweden 7 Moving of several articles about consorts 8 That pouch 9 location of royal births and deaths 10 Royal consorts and monarchs 11 Copyright Registration for Inside Design Now 12 Rainier III 13 ancestry of Pauline de Rothschild 14 Rothschild Wife's Death 15 Collateral descent 16 Sir 17 Pocahontas / Rothschild 18 Donyale Luna 19 Duke of Windsor and brothers 20 Edgar de Evia's partner 21 Edgar de Evia Archives, New York City, New York 22 Copyrighted material 23 Edit Summary 24 Farah Pahlavi 25 Jerome Zerbe‎ 26 Work on Evia's article 27 Kris Osborn article 28 helpme 29 Moving pages 30 Viscount Linley 31 Earl of Snowdon 32 Lady Diana Cooper 33 Anderson Cooper 34 Mansfield citation 35 your destructive edit 35.1 Issue 36 Reza Shah the Great 37 Your userpage

[edit] presumptive vs. apparent

I have read heir apparent and heir presumptive, and it does seem you are confusing one for the other (or Wikipedia's articles on them are wrong). -- Curps 11:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you are quite correct; my apologies.

By the way, if you are a new user, you can sign your comments on a talk page by adding four tildes: ~~~~ , which the software automatically converts into a signature and a timestamp, similar to what appears at the end of this sentence. Curps 11:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

I used the automatic reversion tool on you; I apologise, I shouldn't have - I should have manually reverted you. Please do not revert others without comment.

As I said, her useage of DoR in Scotland is exactly the same as Diana's - she is not changing anything.

James F. (talk) 17:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mountbatten-Windsor

I shortened your explaination that sometimes the Prince of Wales uses the name Mountbatten-Windsor. The beauty of Wikipedia is the ability to hyperlink from one topic to other and not require extensive duplication of information. Both the Mountbatten and Mountbatten-Windsor articles could use the sort of improvement you seem to be adding to the articles of individual members of those families. -Acjelen 18:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Fawzia of Egypt / unnecessary AMBIGUITY

What do you mean by ".......SECOND and last Shah of Iran"? Second of Pahlavi Dynasty would make sense but during 2500 years of Monarchy, Iran was surely ruled by more than 2 shahs, one would suppose. If reference is to IRAN vs Persia, than note that IRAN has always been IRAN from Iranian perspective. Persis/Persia are mere European Names applied to it. Please resolve ensuing ambiguity and delete the term SECOND in this context from the article. --Pantherarosa 08:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duchess of Cornwall

As the difference of views over the article Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall has been rather difficult to resolve, I have created a poll on the talk page. I think you might be interested in voting. -- Emsworth 19:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ingrid of Sweden

Your move of Ingrid of Sweden to Princess Ingrid of Sweden was incorrect. Wikipedia naming conventions rightly place former queens back to their old title minus the word 'princess'. That is standard naming practice used by historians worldwide. Hence historians and wikipeida have Catherine of Aragon not Princess Catherine of Aragon, Mary of Teck not Princess Mary of Teck, etc. If you have changed any other royal spouses in error like this please return them to the correct name format. FearÉIREANN 23:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will be happy to change anything I may have done in error. Mowens35 23:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving of several articles about consorts

Just a quick suggestion: if you're going to move an article, please make sure there aren't any redirects that point to redirects (i.e. if you go to Silvia Sommerlath, you're redirected to a redirect, which can be irritating to average users). These aren't fixed automatically by the "Move" function and must be done manually by the person who made the move. Thanks. 青い(Aoi) 04:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed you've been renaming queen consort articles to their appropriate title names as per Wiki convention. I've noticed Olga, Queen of Greece is also incorrect, would you suggest moving it to Grand Duchess Olga Konstantinova of Russia, because I wasn't sure? Craigy 21:19, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wiki convention is to not use titles when writing article titles for former queens consort. She would have to be Olga Konstantinova of Russia Mowens35 21:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] That pouch

Mitchell, thanks for the email about the pouch quote. Please see my response at Talk:Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark#That pouch. Peter Ellis 14:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] location of royal births and deaths

It is standard policy here not to put in the locations of the births and deaths between the birth and death years. That is because, in a debate quite a long time ago, it was judged that it would make the opening paragraph just too complicated to read. The form used is simply <style> <name> (<birth>-<death>). Other information can be put elsewhere but the opening lines should be very easy to read. You may not realise that. I thought I'd better let you know. FearÉIREANN 22:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Royal consorts and monarchs

hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [1] cheers Antares911 23:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Registration for Inside Design Now

Sorry to use this public forum. I am in the process of registering the copyright for Inside Design Now with the Library of Congress and I need some information from you. Please contact Wendy at Princeton Architectural Press. (http://www.papress.com has contact information, though not specifically for me.) Or you can email me through this username. Thank you. Wendypap 17:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rainier III

In Rainier III, Prince of Monaco, you changed "The prince was a direct descendant of Stéphanie de Beauharnais, an adopted daughter of Napoleon Bonaparte, and of William Thomas Beckford, the scandalous 18th century English collector, tastemaker, writer, and eccentric." to "The prince was a direct descendant of Josephine de Beauharnais, the first wife of Napoleon Bonaparte, and of William Thomas Beckford, the scandalous 18th century English collector, tastemaker, writer, and eccentric." I am nearly certain this is incorrect, but thought I'd ask you for the exact descent that you claim for Rainier from Josephine, just in case I'm wrong. - Nunh-huh 03:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct; i have doublechecked and realize my mistake. Mowens35 12:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ancestry of Pauline de Rothschild

You're right; my information at the time I made that edit (some months ago) was incomplete (from my own genealogical files; Francis Scott Key is my 4th cousin 6x removed, and Mary Tayloe Lloyd is my 2nd cousin 6x removed) and I've since (after further research) discovered I was in error. I do note, however, that the previous version incorrectly showed the line of descent passing through Gwendolen Cary. 65.13.28.4 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct; all is well now Mowens35 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rothschild Wife's Death

Thanks for your message, though I'm not quite sure what your point is. As far as I remember all I did was change the word "executed" to "gassed" in the article at Elisabeth de Rothschild. I would still say that "executed" is inappropriate however she was put to death, but if you think I distorted the facts, and have sources to support your version, I suggest you quote them in the article. At the moment it says she died of typhus. Best wishes, Flapdragon 15:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collateral descent

I happen to be aware that the term has some legal meaning (in determining inheritance, mainly); however, it has no genealogical meaning. It is only used in reference to genealogy by amateurs. None of the professional genealogists of my acquaintance uses it, nor would they; one is descended from one's ancestors, and not from their siblings. In a genealogical, and not a legal sense, a precise description of the relationship involved is better than the fuzziness of saying 'collateral descendant'. 65.13.28.4 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I also know several professional genealogists and they have no problem with the term. It's hardly fuzzy at all; it's quite clear that it means you are not a direct descendant (ie a lineal descendant) but merely one descended from a brother or sister of said person. And numerous state and local genealogical and historical societies have no problem with the term either. Mowens35 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Even so, it is, strictly speaking, a legal term of art which refers to the devisal of property in the absence of direct heirs (hence its use by, for instance, hereditary societies, in which right of membership may descend through a collateral line). The use of the term seems to have arisen through a confusion of legal and genealogical meanings of 'descent'; it would be more appropriate to say that one has a 'collateral relationship' (by virtue of descent from a common ancestor) to a given person not in one's direct line. And even accepting the definition of 'collateral descendant of X' as 'descendant of a brother or sister of X', F. Scott Fitzgerald is not a collateral descendant of Francis Scott Key (because he descends from Francis Scott Key's great-grandfather and not from one of his siblings). 65.13.28.4 09:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir

Hi Mowens

I don't care much about it; but I think it's a pretentious title when bestowed in modern times, and I'm happy for it not to be highlighted in those cases. "Sir Thomas Moore" might be less grating because it refers to a different age. That appears to be the view that underlies WP's policy. Tony 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're thinking it's "pretentious" would be considered POV by Wiki. So I think it should stay when appropriate. Mowens35 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pocahontas / Rothschild

No problem, glad to be able to nail the descent down. (If only she'd had childen, what a delightful ancestry they would have had!) - Nunh-huh 16:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. I've also corrected the identity of the first husband of Elisabeth de Rothschild; let me know if you have any reservations about this. - Nunh-huh 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donyale Luna

Thanks for help on DL article, glad I could start it. V. Joe 00:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duke of Windsor and brothers

True, but George was outraged by the abdication and of course obeyed the King's strict injunction against going to the wedding (Edward peremptorily returned the Kents' wedding present); George was particularly close to Queen Mary and her views on "her" were uncompromising; Henry was outraged by Edward's horning in on Henry's visits to the troops in France, particularly when Edward took the salute.Masalai 09:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Which statements, precisely, are you taking issue with?Masalai 00:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edgar de Evia's partner

Hi, Mowens35. I belive the wording "Later in life, his companion was David McJonathan-Swarm" in refering to Edgar de Evia sounds strange because this "David McJonathan-Swarm" is someone unknown to the casual reader. Maybe, we should use something on the lines of "Later in life, his companion was a man called David McJonathan-Swarm" or "Later in life, his companion was a photographer/politicia/phisycian called David McJonathan-Swarm". I appreciate your input. --Abu Badali 18:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think his profession is unnecessary, re D McJ-S. Although I will certainly ask him what his profession actually is, if you think it will help. I don't think we would use "a woman named" in another similar context. Mowens35 18:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying it that a name is a name, that's all, and doesn't really require anything beyond that at times. Mowens35 18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be ok with "Later in life, his companion was Steven Spielberg", as Steven Spielberg is a well known name that doesn't really require anything beyond that. But McJonathan is an unknow name for the casual reader, and some minnor info on him would simply warn the reader he is really not supposed to be known. Also, I didn't mean to emphasize the homesexual nature of the relatioship. I have no problem with this. The use of "a man" just reflected my inability to better qualify that person (mentioning the profession being just a not-so-better tentative). Best regards, --Abu Badali 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think, based on numerous other Wiki entries, that an identifier re a spouse/companion/lover is not necessary under the circumstances, ie as part of a list of romantic companions/spouses. It is clear that he is a man, given his first name and de Evia's previous relationship. It is just stated as a matter of fact, nothing more. But I will email D McJ-S and find out more. Mowens35 18:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edgar de Evia Archives, New York City, New York

Hi, Mowens35. What are the "Edgar de Evia Archives, New York City, New York" you mention as a source? Thanks, --Abu Badali 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted material

Please, do not post copyrighted materia to my User page (or any other Wikipedia page for the record) as you did in this edition. Also, whenever possible, avoid comments larger than 100 lines. A link would work better in this case. --Abu Badali 21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary

--Abu Badali 13:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farah Pahlavi

The presence of the née in the beginning of the article will permit the article to popup in a search when searching for her but without giving her Pahlavi name. For example, if you type in Dahi, you wont find her but if you add the Dahi in the first words of the sentence, then the search catches it. I would be happy if you would restore it in order to help with the searching capabilities of the encyclopedia. Lincher 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On the same thought, it isn't true that the Pahvali have renouced to their crown, they still adhere to the idea though it they aren't the current ruler of Iran. Please refrain from making such assumptions or add references to what you changed. Lincher 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As per other pretenders, Wiki cites the titles they use or claim; the Iranian royals neither use nor claim any of their titles, as per their own websites. Mowens35 19:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This claim you make isn't true since all her website is placarded with the word Empress and if she would refuse her title, the especially the official site would be showing her name without the title. Lincher 19:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

get over yourself; i misspoke and just fixed it; are you happy? oh, I hope so.Mowens35 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also please consider reading this [2] found on her website that states that even if she isn't the empress she still claims to the title. I will also add that even though I assumed good faith after you modification of the née thingy you went berserk and changed all the dynasty stuff which in my opinion shouldn't be done without clearly identifying your sources or giving a reason on the talk page.

I am sorry I went all out like that but I have been perusing wikipedia and saw enough mistakes today that this was too much for me for now. Lincher 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the Almanach de Gotha, for instance, Farah's weird combined use of her former title with her family surname is incorrect and unprecedented officially, though she uses it. The only members of the former imperial family who are entitled to use the surname along with a princely title are the younger sons of a Shah. Daughters of the monarch are styled (when the monarch was active) as "Princess FIRSTNAME of Iran"; younger sons of the monarch are "Prince FIRSTNAME Pahlavi"; grandchildren use a different version of prince and princess (which indicate a grandchildren instead of a son/daughter) along with their first name and surname.Mowens35 19:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerome Zerbe‎

Thanks for your additions to Jerome Zerbe‎. I'd like to ask where you learned about the location of his collection? I created and wrote the original Zerbe article; I'm interested in knowing what became of his work. Thanks. --K72ndst 21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A friend of mine archived and catalogued the collection for Mr Koch about a decade ago, after he purchased it from Zerbe's estate.Mowens35 13:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Work on Evia's article

Hi, Mowens35. Do you still have some plans to work on this article as you mentioned? You've done a great deal of work but it it still has far too many unsourced claims (not inserted by you, I know). I plan to make a clean up on this article to remove any such passages, but of course it would be better to wait for your work on it to be finished. Thanks for your attention. Best regards, --Abu Badali 01:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kris Osborn article

Thanks for your recent work on the Kris Osborn article. I took what was basically a one-sentence stub and added quite a bit of information. I was glad to see that you were able to add quite a bit more information, while at the same time maintaining most of what I had contributed. Thanks again. I think the article reads very well. Dbart 21:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] helpme

I cannot stay signed into Wikipedia for more than a few seconds at a time; when I shift between articles or click on a link, the page opens and indicates that I'm now NOT signed in; I've already signed it about 20 times in the last five-10 minutes. What is the problem?

Do you have cookies enabled? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the IP that put this in, it looks like you are using a satellite internet connection. That commonly seems to cuase problems with the cookies wikipedia uses to keep you signed in. --pgk 20:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It has worked fine until today, utterly fine. Last night, for instance, it was perfect, not a glitch.

[edit] Moving pages

You've been told before as I can see to never ever move articles without discussion first. Such moves are very ill-advised no matter how certain you are about how good are they, except very few non-controversial cases. Your move of the Russian empress article may spark fire. In any case, please do not ever do it. --Irpen 23:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not move anything; which is why I posted a message. Your high dudgeon is warrantless at this point, as well your warning.Mowens35 23:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Aplologies! Very much sorry! Someone else moved it and I posted my comments to your talk by error! Sorry again, too much stuff going on. :( --Irpen 23:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viscount Linley

This is copied from User talk:67.142.130.31, where I posted it two days ago. I am assuming that that IP belongs to you, given your subsequent comments, but that you did not see this message. TysK 02:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The forms of address page lists how peers (and courtesy peers) are referred to in writing in formal circumstances, such as on the outside of envelopes. The courtesy title page similarly tells how peers and courtesy peers are generally referred to if their whole title is given; however, both "actual" and courtesy marquesses, earls, viscounts, and barons can be and commonly are referred to as "Lord X," both orally and in writing. The Marquess of Winchester can also be called simply Lord Winchester, and the (courtesy) Marquess of Blandford can also be called simply Lord Blandford. These forms are commonly used by the British government, the media, and Wikipedia. Indeed, on Wikipedia peers (or courtesy peers) below the rank of duke are always referred to as "Lord X," except in circumstances where there must be clarity about which "Lord X" is being discussed (non-contemperaneous references, family relationships, and obviously article titles, among others). As an example see Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury, who was a prominent British politician when he held the courtesy title Viscount Cranborne. The article consistently refers to him as "Lord Cranborne," which, as I said, is standard practice Wiki-wide. If you have any doubts about this, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage. I also think showing Linley's place in the line of succession at the time of his birth shows how much more prominent as a member of the royal family he was then than now-- fifth in line is rather high, neither Prince Edward nor Princess Anne is currently that high in line.

As per his status as a child in line of succession, I continue to think it incredibly minor and without much interest today, more than 40 years on. Unless, of course, you wish to add similar notations to other members of his family, ie his sister, showing that she was in close line as well, though quite long ago. Mowens35 14:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earl of Snowdon

I don't want to begin an edit war with you, but I had to revert several edits you made to Lord Snowdon's page, and you deserve an explanation. First of all, it is standard practice to only list the senior peerage held by a peer in the article lead and in the list of titles; the fact that his barony is a life peerage makes no difference. I re-inserted the reference to Margaret in the first paragraph. Though Lord Snowdon is prominent enough to merit an article on his own, he is certainly most well-known as Margaret's husband (i.e., when most people hear Lord Snowdon, they don't think "photographer", they think "royal ex"). Note that almost the entire article is devoted to Snowdon's marriages and family, while his career merits only two sentences. I agree with your deletion of the Anne Hill reference if it is true that she was no more or less important than several different women in his life. I was under the impression that they had been engaged in a steady relationship throughout his life and up to the time of her death, while other women (such as the mother of his younger son) were merely flings or short-term relationships. However, I know nothing of the peculiarities of the case. I changed "Snowdon-Windsor" back to "Armstrong-Jones-Windsor" because it bothers me that the former gives his title but her surname, while the latter simply gives their surnames. It is also worth noting that he was not made a peer until they had been married for over a year, so their was no "Snowdon" until then. I am open to a change of mind on this point, though. I hope my reasons for making the changes are logical and do not provoke "high dudgeon" from you. TysK 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) He was only Armstrong-Jones for less than a year after their marriage, hence my alteration to Snowdon. (2) I'm putting his marriage to Margaret on a separate graph; by this time in his career, he is one of Britain's most celebrated photographs, let's give the man that credit. (3) Several other articles cite both senior peerage and lesser peerage, in the case of a life peerage (check them out and let's discuss). And do get a copy of Debrett's; it will help you considerably. And do spell using American English, rather than Queen's English; the latter is a bit pretentious not to mention non-Wiki.Mowens35 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'll be beefing up his career graphs, which will be substantial.Mowens35 23:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) I'll give in on the Snowdon. (2) If you add significant information about his career, the reference to Margaret in the lead probably will become unnecessary. (3) Give an example of one of these other articles, then we'll discuss, as I believe any article that did so would be going against standards. (4) I'm not sure where I used "Queen's English" over American English; however, it is Wiki policy that articles on British subjects should use British spellings, and I try to adhere to that (though that's difficult because I'm an American!) TysK 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

ie subject headings like "Titles and Honours" should be "Titles and Honors", that is an example I've changed today Mowens35 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Diana Cooper

I await your next message. Mowens35 23:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, her daughter-in-law was Anne, Viscountess Norwich, but lost both the "The" in front of her name as well as the "Rt. Hon.", which made Lady Diana the only "The Viscountess Norwich" and the only one with the honorific. TysK 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As important as this discussion is, I'm going to have to suspend it for now, as I have real-life places to be. TysK 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you best check Debrett's for Diana's proper style and title between 1985 and 1986. Find a copy published in those years for confirmation. I also would be happy to call the editors there; I often do for work. Mowens35 23:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The rule is essentially that a widowed peeress doesn't need to change her style (adding "Dowager") when there's no need to do so. If she's already changed it, and that change becomes retrospectively unnecessary, I think it unlikely she could (or would want to) change it back. With some noble families this would result in the unfortunate lady constantly changing titles whilst her wayward noble son repeatedly marries and divorces. (It would also most likely cause some confusion: though the former wife of the current peer is now formally "Jane, Countess of Loamshire", it's at least conceivable that she will continue to be called "the Countess of Loamshire" by some people (just as Sarah, Duchess of York is still occasionally (and erroneously) referred to as "the Duchess of York"), and so it would be inadvisable for her mother-in-law to be too ready to re-assume that style.) Proteus (Talk) 10:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My comment remains: what did Debrett's or another authority call her at the various times in her life, at the end of her life. It doesn't matter what you think, honestly; it's what an authority states.Mowens35 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anderson Cooper

Your recent contribution(s) to to the Wikipedia article Anderson Cooper are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Thanks! Please remember that claiming that this is verifiable is not enough. We need actual sources. See WP:V. -- lucasbfr ^talk 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do is go to gawker.com and type his name into the search engine; endless citations come up. Do you actually want all of them? Or just one?

Per WP:RS we are not a tabloid. Gossip sites are not the best sources of information. Also, please be mindfrul of WP:3RR on the article. Thank you. -- Avi 01:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the notations re gossip columns but have put Cooper's comment into context, since it was stated in New York Magazine in response to an article written about him in Out magazine. Without context, his quote makes no sense and should be removed. Mowens35 01:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mansfield citation

The Strait book isn't the Bible, and just the last name of the author isn't much of an identity. Besides, it looks strange to have the same citation put in as numbers 22 through number 32. Any particular reason for not citing the full name of the book and the author, and putting the same "Strait" on multiple places on the same list without any added reference (like page number or something)? - Aditya Kabir 17:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Aditya, it is common practice in any editorial situation to fully cite the book upon first reference, then merely the author's name next, often with the page number. I have edited enough books to know this. I will find the quotes' page numbers, but am at my office now; the book is at my home. It is where I got most of the quotes. It was the first biography published about Mansfield and written by her longtime press agent, Raymond Strait, who has since become a major biographer of Hollywood subjects.Mowens35 17:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right. And, that is exactly why WP uses the < ref name= "..." > code. It enables you to quote the same source without making a long list. Instead of being listed as references 12, 13 and 14 - for instance - they get listed as reference 12 a, b, and c. Besides WP has a citation guideline (check WP:CITET), which I hope will satisfy you. One more thing - thanks and congratulations for your efforts to put references to the Jayne Mansfield article. Can you apply the citation templates to any other citation you made or will make? I would also like to request that you give a hand to cleaning the article up. It's not good read yet. And, since you are quite knowledgeable about the subjet, may be you can help. Thanks again. - Aditya Kabir 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been cleaning it up like crazy; give me some time. We all (I think) have other jobs, too. And I'm not knowledgable about her at all; I just know how to research quickly.Mowens35 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on two counts. You don't know how to do quick research. You have not even checked how to cite sources at WP, even when you were directed to it. And, you have not been clening it up like crazy. Adding a few sources is not cleaning up like crazy. The article was not one ounce a better since you have gone through it about half a dozen times. Sorry, arrogance serves no one. And, please, don't take this personally. - Aditya Kabir 18:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your destructive edit

Because you asked, here is a detailed reply giving reasons why I regard your said edit destructive.

You erased totally the following section from the article:

[edit] Issue

From his second marriage with Angelica Philippa Kauffmann (born Paris 21 June 1932 or 23 March 1932), whom Paul married in Palm Beach, Florida on 1 October 1952, he had four children. His issue is as follows:

• Dimitri Ilyinsky, de jure Duke of Holstein-Gottorp (born Palm Beach 1 May 1954) who married New Haven, Connecticut 22 September 1979 Martha McDowell (born New Haven, Connecticut 15 Jun 1952) and has three daughters:

• • Catherine Adair Ilyinsky (born Cincinnati, Ohio 4 August 1981)
  • Victoria Bayard Ilyinsky (born Cincinnati, Ohio 23 November 1984)
  • Lela McDowell Ilyinsky (born Cincinnati, Ohio 26 August 1986)

• Paula Maria Ilyinsky (born Palm Beach, Florida 18 May 1956), married Cincinnati, Ohio 31 May 1980 Mark Comisar (born Cincinnati, Ohio 17 June 1953), and had two children, the elder of whom survives:

• • Alexander Lee Comisar (born Cincinnati 6 April 1983)
  • Makena Anna Comisar (Cincinnati 20 Nov 1984-Clermont County, Ohio 1 August 2002)

• Anna Ilyinsky (born Palm Beach 4 September 1959); married firstly Henniker, New Hampshire 9 May 1980 (divorced 1990) Robin de Young (born Cambridge, Massachusetts 25 December 1952) ; married secondly Cincinnati, Ohio 18 December 1992 David Wise Glossinger (born Dayton, Ohio 11 July 1953). Has four children, two of each marriage:

• • Audrey Emery de Young (born Cincinnati 1 April 1983)
  • Heather Morrison de Young (born Cincinnati 25 October 1985)
  • Sophia Wise Glossinger (born Cincinnati 5 May 1993)
  • Paul Glossinger (born Cincinnati 19 Sep 1995)

• Michael Ilyinsky (born Palm Beach 4 Jan 1961); married firstly Cincinnati 7 November 1989 (divorced 1996) Paula Maier (born Cincinnati 1 September 1965); married secondly 21 May 1999 (divorced 2001) Lisa Marie Schiesler (born 17 May 1973). Has one daughter, born of first marriage:

• • Alexis Taylor Ilyinsky (born 1 March 1994)

There is no controversy that this actually is Paul Ilyinsky' publicly known and legitimate issue. My reasons why it should be allowed to stay in the article, are same which I already wrote: "rv destructive edit... This branch is in monarchist circles presented as heirs of titles or monarchies, list of them has thus encyclopedic value". There it is said in concise form. Much more words would not fit into the small space supplied to edit comments. One of the reasons why Paul Ilyinsky, a former mayor of a town, has his biography article here is because he is agnatically senior member of the Holstein-Gottorp princely family, and similarly a genealogically senior (though possibly non-dynastic) descendant of the Russian Imperial Family. Most of links to his biography article seem to come from other pages dealing with royalty, which fact is a signal of weight why that article exists/ is needed. He and his branch have been presented as potential heirs in monarchist circles. Therefore, his branch (those who are his heirs, successors and potential heirs), i.e his descendants, have encyclopedic value of being potential heirs to certain defunct thrones and titles. And they clearly have that position together (having inherited it from Paul) - it will be somewhat meaningless to create own biography article of each (I know that here exist even such editors who create those, but I am not willing to endorse such individual articles). Therefore, a lit of his descendants is a justified thing to his biography article. To some people, formerly-reigning royalty and their heirs have entertainment value - some glossy magazines follow doings of such royals, and publish articles about them (I have got an impression that you also are in that sort of business), and people read those. To some (possibly other) people, pretenders and restorations of monarchies are important things, apparently. That sort of information has, already on those bases, its encyclopedic value. So, it should not be repelled from here. However, you decided to erase that whole section, and even without first raising question about it in the relevant talk page. I regard that behavior destructive. Shilkanni 08:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reza Shah the Great

I made a number of changes to clarify the various names used for Reza Shah the Great. Have a look if you like! Shervink 16:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)shervink

Hi. I'm not sure about the exact meaning of "Mirpanj", but I can probably look it up. He must have adopted "Pahlavi" around 1925 (when he was elected Shah), but I do not know exactly when. What the word means you can see here and here.Shervink 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)shervink

[edit] Your userpage

Per your request, I've deleted your userpage. If you needed access to any of the old edits, or if you'd like to restore selective parts of the history, let me know. Luna Santin 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)