User talk:63.166.120.27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Kingdom of Hawaii

I'm sorry, but I don't think your eplanet.com addition is very appropriate. The site which you link to is not only poorly laid out and amateurish, but the information you purport to link to is surrounded by other things like Saddam Hussein and JFK articles. If you would like to contribute genealogical information, I suggest you create articles here on wikipedia, and put the information there, rather than try to direct traffic to a vanity site. --JereKrischel 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments...however, the facts remain that Kamehameha's descendants exist, as well as King David Kalakaua's, and Queen Liliuokalani's descendants! Vanity site? because of the roses? p....l...ease...
there are a lot of problematic issues....and i have 22+ years of history research, 17+ years of genealogies research, plus 7+ years of legal research, have more than 25 books written and am the editor/ author of the news on the web IOLANI - The Royal Hawk ---66 issues put out today....
go to yahoogroups.com under the hawaiian_genealogy_history-akg for more than 800 articles, etc. and you're welcome to download .......aloha.
Modern day claimants to a royal house 100 years past are not inherently notable. To place your own name up as a "princess" is not appropriate for wikipedia. Certainly there are thousands of descendants of Kamehameha today - it would be inappropriate to try and list them all. Please see the guidelines. I am pleased that you have written many books, and studied a lot of history. However, wikipedia is not a forum for you to express your political opinions, or publicize your own works. Again, please read the guidelines, and contribute accordingly. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity site

Also, to answer your question, your site is a vanity site not because of the roses, but because of its unprofessional look and content. It looks like a free website, that has been built using pre-packaged templates without any regard as to its usability. Furthermore, the topics covered are clearly opinion pieces by you, with everything from your take on George Bush, Saddam Hussein, and Santa Claus. It certainly is a valid form of self-expression on the internet, and I applaud you for having a personal website to express your viewpoint, but it does not merit a link from Hawaiian Kingdom articles.

If you would like to contribute specific genealogical information, I would be more than happy to help you create a new page, something akin to "Geneaology of Hawaiian Royalty". It should contain not only your geneaological charts, but the sources and references you've used to develop them - birth certificates, genetic tests, etc. It should be NPOV (that is, Neutral Point of View), without any particular commentary about your political beliefs. If there are assertions that you make without solid references, i.e., oral history, attribution and identification about the ambiguity of such evidence should be mentioned as well.

I look forward to working with you further on this - in the meantime, please refrain from adding links to your personal site, and adding content that is inappropriate, on the Kingdom of Hawaii page. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 11:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

After following your links, it seems that you in fact have nothing available online except for opinion articles, and solicitations to buy your books. Your free geocities site contains a partially editied family tree with conspicuous "add your text here" left overs from whatever you used to edit it, and is not readable or comprehensible.

Your "IOLANI HAWK" page has only "Top Stories from Reuters", and then more solicitations to buy your merchandise. Your "hawaiian_genealogy_society-akg" group on yahoo is clearly dedicated to political activism regarding sovereignty, including posts which reiterate your legal demands for $700,000 from the DOE for alleged wrongful dismissal. Although there is some geneological information interspersed in your opinion pieces, it is often unreadable and poorly formatted.

In any case, I think if you have factual, verifiable information to contribute, without the injection of opinion or POV, your contributions will be very welcome. --JereKrischel 11:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)