User talk:DWC LR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, DWC LR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Robdurbar 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have identified yourself as an Anglican, and so I thought that you may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Friedrich Franz II of Mecklenburg-Schwerin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Friedrich Franz II of Mecklenburg-Schwerin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former Countries

Hi. Thanks for implementing the Former Country infobox on a number of European states. Since the infobox is still under development, this is just a quick note to ask that you keep up to date with the instructions on how to use the infobox's many features here. If you have any questions of comments about the infobox, just ask.

Also, I would like to invite you to join the Former countries WikiProject, where our main action is the development and propogation of the infobox (and other templates) as well as improving the content and accessibility of entries on former countries. Keep up the good work. - 52 Pickup 14:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Crown Princess Himani.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Crown Princess Himani.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject England. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to England related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Project Page!. Thank You.

[edit] Hello!

I realized you'd worked on the article Albania under Italy. I didn't have time to work on the box, and thank you for that. I was just wondering, how come you know about Albania that much?--Albanian since Stone Age 11:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georgian succession

Just wanted to add a quick thanks for your help with the article I created yesterday. The changes look great! Tim Foxworth 20:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great job on Dipendra of Nepal

Great work on that article! I revised it a couple days ago to try and balance POV, but I was too lazy to look up any sources. :D It's actually a pretty decent article now that you've fleshed it out and trimmed the unnecessary content! --Jaysweet 17:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] s-roy: one last thing

I was wrong about the last example you gave me. That one was done correctly. Thanks for the help. I changed all of them to the proper format, although all the rest of the Monaco templates seem fine.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 22:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.dwc lr 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem

Why did you remove the list of Jerusalem claiments from the pretenders page? It is an extinct kingdom with claiments and therefore should be on the list of modern pretenders. Emperor001 17:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Counldn't we just have filled in the empty Link to past monarchy box? Emperor001 20:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I replaced the Jersusalem claiments into the table. Under link to past monarchy, I said when the Kingdom was abolished and that due to various succession theories, there are multiple pretenders. Emperor001 21:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royalty headers

Please stop to remove the royalty headers everywhere, the "Regnal titles" headers do not replace them: The purpuse is to say that a person belongs to the royalty of a certain country. The headers "Regnal titles" or "Titles in pretence" are to be added for to explain whether the person in question is/was officiating or not. Louis88 10:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANB

Is it just me or everyone you've been disagreeing with? Honest question. Charles 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 14 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sophie of Schönburg-Waldenburg, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 11:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know

Updated DYK query On 7 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prince Dimitri Romanov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 talk 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] AfD nomination of Christopher Berwick

An article that you have been involved in editing, Christopher Berwick, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Berwick. Thank you. Joyous! | Talk 23:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Romanian Royal Family. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mecklenburg

A few questions:

  • Why are you removing the title of Count of Carlow, which belongs to Duke George Borwin as the male-line representative of his ancestress, the Countess of Carlow?
  • Why are you flat out stating the George Borwin is head of the House of Mecklenburg when that is at best disputed?
  • Why are you directly claiming that only George Borwin is the successor to the Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg and then adding an "if he isn't" when really it is disputed?
  • Do you not believe that the Prussians were dynasts and had to be consulted on altering the line of succession? Pierre Aronax at ATR on the Carlow line:

What did the Mecklemburg laws say on this subject? Excluded: can not be reincluded, at least not without the consent of all the potential heirs, which include the titular King of Prussia, by virtu of a pact of succession. So, the present claimant must be the Prince of Prussia, not the Duke of Mecklenburg. François Velde made the demonstration when the question arose for the first time.

Also, consider the ATR FAQ:

Mecklenburg

(a) Mecklenburg-Schwerin

* Friedrich Franz, Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (Friedrich Franz V, Titular Grand Duke of M.-S.) (1910-2001) The male line is now extinct; but see below

* 1918 (Nov): when Friedrich Franz IV, Grand Duke of M.-S. renounced the throne

(b) Mecklenburg-Strelitz

* same as M.-Schwerin since 1918

* 1918 (Feb): when the throne became vacant on the death of Adolf Friedrich VI, Grand Duke of M.-S.

(c) Mecklenburg

* Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia (Georg Friedrich, Titular German Emperor, King of Prussia, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg) (b. 1976)

by virtue of a 1442 succession pact, the claim to Mecklenburg reverted to the margraves of Brandenburg on extinction of the dynasty in 2001

Please answer these because edit warring is not needed. Charles 22:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Mecklenburg-Carlow line is frequently attributed the Carlow title, it is theirs and there is no need to censor it. People can make claims for themselves all they want, they are either right or wrong, but the fact that they alone may make them is not support enough to push it as fact. The Prussians were dynasts as they were in line after the dynastic members of the House of Mecklenburg. Francois has amended his position on the matter and after discussion has changed the FAQ accordingly. This is all over ATR, you can search for it. That one person who maintains a genealogical entry has a position on the matter does not make it the be all and end all. It is at best disputed. I too could just as easily make an Angelfire website with no references. Charles 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
That does not answer the question of why websites that say GB is the only claimant (or only mention him) are admissible to say that he, and only he, can be Head of the House of Mecklenburg and that he is indeed a member of it, when it is well-known that it is disputed at best. It does not answer the question of how the Online Gotha alone can be cited at times to say that he is unquestionably Head of the House of Mecklenburg when, again, this is disputed. It also does not answer the question of why the Carlow title is removed when that is George Borwin's only completely undisputed senior position, as head of his line. Charles 23:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
We need to find common ground between those that believe that retro-demorganatization is possible and occurred in the House of Mecklenburg and those that believe that it cannot and did not happen. Those are where the true, solid, undisputed facts are. Charles 23:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
That is has been claim, discussed and sourced that the House of Mecklenburg is extinct justly renders GB's claim as head of that house to be disputed. That his ancestress was created Countess of Carlow for that title to be enjoyed by all of her legitimate male-line descendants makes them all Counts and Countesses of Carlow. Nothing has removed that title. A claim does not have to be directly made by another party, or even on behalf of another party, for one's claim to be disputed. I have heard about many, many royals for different reasons and I only heard of George Borwin through discussions on his dynastic/non-dynastic status. I am not saying that he is not a Duke of Mecklenburg, but I will not go all out and say his is dynastic only because he says so and because the Prince of Prussia has not said anything. I refer to the Jacobite royal line and note that not always do the representatives make the claims for themselves, it is discussed. Given that the Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburg, the last undisputed male member of the House of Mecklenburg, only died in 2001 and given the shrinking relevance of royalty to Germany (the Jacobites are arguably more important to the countries where the claims were applied), the discussion of the dynasticity of the Mecklenburg-Carlow line is still ongoing, but it is going. Treaties have been referred to, questions of retro-demorganatization and whether it can or could be done are made have been and are being asked. That the views of people who are involved in these discussions have been used to support your view also supports the disputed status of GB as well. Charles 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, do you believe that, without question, that George Borwin is the undisputed Head of the House of Mecklenburg? If so, why? Charles 00:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King David Isle of Man

Hello. I am David Howe. I'm contacting you regardind the edits you made on the biography page about me. I have never claimed the title "Duke of Antwerp" outside of the context of the comedy documentary film about the micronation Vikesland. It is not a real title and should not be regarded as such. I would appreciate it if you did repost that information. It leads readers to believe that I considered the title to be real and this is not the case. Vikesland was a fake place created for the purposes of a film examning the bizarre world of make believe nations. I thank you in advance for your understanding and interest in neutral edits about me. Thank you. David--70.17.223.254 (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Second Mexican Empire. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Transcendence (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

You have not answered as to the validity and context of sources. You are blindly following text without the obvious context, much like citing the new "Almanach de Gotha" as being a book of absolute facts. What have you to say on the matter? You have not addressed it, you have only danced around it. Charles 16:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times article predates the amendment to Carol's birth certificate by about eight years. He didn't have the surname "al României" (or as you would believe, "of Romania") then. It's not a source to give a surname, and if it was, shouldn't you be arguing for "Hohenzollern of Romania" as it appears in the article? It talks about what "should", etc, not what even happened yet. And also, full literal translations do not reflect fact. The context of the article is also about the son of a king, that's why they are using a territorial designation mixed with a presumed surname (Hohenzollern). Are you going to argue for "Hohenzollern of Romania"? Charles 17:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That is the problem now, the article states nothing of the sort. Now, since it is claimed that the article gives a surname, you have to choose between "of Romania" or "Hohenzollern of Romania" if that is your belief. The article does not determine a surname at all. All English sources use "of Romania" as a princely designation. The Romanian source calls him "Prince Carol Mircea" and that compromises "of Romania" as a surname when really it is a territorial designation. The translation is also not reliable, it is sloppy. Such an article can be used as a source for facts such as when the birth certificate was issued, when legal battles started, etc, but it does not come close to grasping even the largest nuances of the English language and therefore cannot determine absolute English usage. I am not denying Carol "of Romania", I am motioning that he was Carol Lambrino, later Carol Hohenzollern and finally Carol al României (in English literally Carol of Romania), styled HRH Prince Carol of Romania. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, the surname "al României" does mean "of Romania", but that is just that, it's only a meaning, not the actual surname. I point again to the example I made, of the Savoys. For instance, Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice and Piedmont. He may be called Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy and Prince Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy, but his surname is "di Savoia", although it does in fact mean "of Savoy" (which is the name of the royal house to which he belongs as well). Does this make sense? There are differences between surnames and princely/house/territorial names. We don't go around saying the Prince of Prussia's surname is "Prince of Prussia" although that is what it means. We also don't duplicate things since the articles already state Carol was known as HRH Prince Carol of Romania. I'm not a bad guy, trust me. Charles 19:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You are ignoring time and time again things I have said. Read WP:RSUE: "Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly." Errors arise in literal translations. Like I mentioned before, it's a good source for determining court dates, etc, but does not account for English usage. Also, address directly the fact that the WT article from 1995 does not give any sort of surname whatsoever and also address the fact that if it is admissible to give a surname there are two choices "of Romania" and "Hohenzollern of Romania" and it is not our place to pick between one or the other. The fact of the matter is that there are no reliable English sources that give any sort of official surname. None. There is a primary source that lists his surname though, the birth certificate. So, are you going to address what I bolded above and also the Savoy/Prussia examples? You cannot counter a primary source with text from newspapers taken out of context and with bad translations. Charles 19:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carol Lambrino

Thanks for adding Carol Lambrino to the QVD category. I don't know how I managed to miss him when I went through recent descendants. Morhange (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish throne?

Who's Prince Heinrich of Hesse? Are you sure that doesn't refer to Heinrich Donatus? Or maybe you mean Prince Philipp of Hesse-Kassel's son Heinrich? By why would he inherit upon Philipp's death when Moritz was alive and had a dynastically equal marriage? Does the Finnish succession go to second son? Morhange (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Felix Habsburg, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On February 18, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Felix Habsburg, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

thanks for helping clean up Mohammed Zahir Shah. Kingturtle (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heraldica.org

If you have such a problem with this website I suggest you remove every single instance of it you ever come across. Best of luck to you. Charles 00:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to consider the level of care, discussion and the greatest attempt at presenting all sides and possibilities that Francois Velde makes. I am trying to present both sides, you are erasing one of them completely. Charles 00:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The eighth in line point is moot (and wouldn't that be OR?) given that the titular Margrave of Brandenburg and the titular King of Prussia are always the same person. Those prerogatives are always held together, given that Brandenburg is a predecessor to Prussia and within their own house the Hohenzollerns are responsible for who is a member and who is not (they have no other limiting treaties). Charles 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It is disputed, otherwise it wouldn't be talked about and the treaty would not even be a question and you wouldn't have initially used Strelitz/Carlow as a compromise designation. I never at any point in this most recent ridiculous series of reversions said that, without a doubt, the Prince of Prussia is the only claimant to Mecklenburg, a claim that you make for the Carlow line. Also, what are your sources for Duke Georg of Mecklenburg, Count of Carlow being recognized as a dynasty of the House of Mecklenburg? On what basis do you ignore the treaty of Wittstock? I have provided a source from a man who is very well respected for his analysis of heraldry and royalty stating that there is a possibility that the House of Mecklenburg is extinct — not that it is for certain though. Charles 00:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia

you seem to be a edit war in this article i came to tell you to be careful of the 3rr rule because i think you close to broking it so be carefullOo7565 (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP sock evading ban

I reverted the edit made Here from the IP address to last revision by you. If you wish, you can make a report at WP:ANI since this seems to be getting out of hand. Momusufan (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I take it that your comments on talk:Silvia Lancome mean that you don't have any issue with the article's content—only who is doing the editing? If some other user reverted it to the anon's preferred version, that would be fine with you? —EncMstr 07:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest full protection to the article for as long as possible so that the 'vandal', benam can go away. Please see talk:Silvia Lancome where I left a message.--mCtOOls 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to do checkuser on indef blocked vandals who are hiding under IPs while doing their work then all you need to do is file checkuser on the banned person, and instead of writing {{checkuser|sock puppet name here you would need to write {{checkip|IP number here. If different ips are used then you must list all of those ips.--mCtOOls 18:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Many thanks!

... for fixing the boorish edit someone inflicted upon my user page. --Mactographer (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] user: McTools

Just to let you know he has been tagged and banned as a sockpuppet of NisarKand by checkuser admins.

[edit] Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta

Some users requested a move to Aimone, Duke of Aosta. I opposed that and invite you to do the same. We have successfully opposed the move once before - we will do the same - but we need your help. Thanks for your participation. We have additional grounds now. See my discussion in the talk page, there was a Law decree on the Crown of king Zvonimir to which crown the right of rule has been transffered (like in the case of Crown of St. Stephen of Hungary). -- Imbris (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing by Imbris. Please use your own good judgment and facts in making decisions. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we have anybody else who is interested? -- Imbris (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. He didn't rule Croatia

2. He was not the legal Head of State

Therefore, he's neither de facto nor de jure Croatian King. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


At least I hope one could concede that the arguments for the move outweigh those against, if both sides have valid arguments. 00:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)--DIREKTOR (TALK)
Like Direktor stated to the above.
Then why don't you change to "of Independent State of Croatia"? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tomislav II

The articles Peter II of Yugoslavia and Kingdom of Yugoslavia, make it quite clear there was no independant Kingdom of Croatia from 1941-43. I'm not being a revionist. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree

Sorry m8, but I disagree. The "decision" was not made (obviously). The man made a simple mistake that I pointed out, that's all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My actions are "disgraceful"? Your actions are bordering on a personal attack. Simply put, he did not take notice of the vote, which overwhelmingly supports the move. Anyway, I suggest you find other ways of proving your "point" than insulting people. I refuse to once again enter into pointless discussion with you, if you are interested in the reason for the move, you can find it on the talkpage. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I'll succeed when many have attempted to convince you that you just may be wrong. bye --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

I advice you regarding violation of user:DIREKTOR for this restriction. Always DIREKTOR persists in several edit wars pushing his POV statements. Articles involved:

You can control history of these articles for evidence! He is in violation of this policy: wikipedia:harassment. Regards. Nemo, 9 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.84.100 (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

HI DWC, just to let you know that the above entry is by banned User:PIO [1], editing today as 151.67.84.100. He's got a rotating IP set up, having previously been seen (for example) as 151.67.85.112, 151.67.84.93 and 151.67.84.199. Not sure there's much we can do about it, given that it's a dynamic IP, but I thought I'd let you know. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR and AlasdairGreen27 are both sockpuppets of a banned user!!!! Sure I am not PIO. Nemo, 9 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.85.227 (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re

Well the move proposal is over, but the discussion is still on. Provided, of course, you do not remove it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

omg, do you doubt that the title is disputed? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Its obvious that the article's title is disputed, therefore I placed the disputed tag. The discussion is apparently still on, and Pax's mistake in plaving his response does not mean he does not disupte the article title. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh I most certainly do not, on a non-fascist Wikipedia at least. But there is no rule that says this tag can be placed on the article whose title is disputed only if the move is currently proposed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey I was looking for that! couldn't find it! thanks :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I imagine so, good luck with your proposals. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thx for reverting vandalism on my user page

Good job, i haven't been on that page for weeks, thanks for keeping it clean! :) Jancikotuc (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louise Adélaïde d'Orléans

just thought that id say thank you for seeing the situation as i did!!! :) :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbharding (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


ahh thats really encouraging..still a bit new to this lol :) :) Tbharding (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Belgian royals

It's a tertiary title. We aren't going to add Duke of Schlewig, Holstein, Stormarn and Ditmarschen, Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst, Heir to Norway for every member of the House of Oldenburg so we shouldn't be adding secondary and tertiary titles for members of the House of Wettin. Charles 22:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you say so it might as well be a team effort. Charles 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing conventions

You are reminded to seek consensus when changing conventions. Consensus was sought and an 80% majority voted for a change. The change was made, now that people disagree it is up to you to start a new discussion if you want change. Remember to back up your arguments with sources. Charles 23:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Behave

Dear Sir, I am quite sorry to have to write to you like this, but I feel that there is a particular issue I must bring to your attention. I would like to preface this comment with my appreciation for your mostly good-faith participation in our recent dicussion. However, I must object very strongly to the way in which you spectacularly lost your cool and pratcically called Charles a Nazi. As I am sure you're aware, that is completely and utterly unacceptable behaviour — as you'll have gathered from his reply, this was a particularly harsh comment to aim at him personally. I happen to know from interpersonal discussion that he was growing tired of incivility in the recent discussion (whether or not this would have been had he been "winning" we'll not know), and I would bet anything that your comment has done significant damage to his will to continue here. I am not proud of having "won" this discussion if in the process we have lost a dedicated, civil, respectful editor. For shame. I am never one to threaten, and I wish to continue editing with you in comradery, but I strongly advise you kerb your tongue in future, lest you hit more powerful objections. Yours most sincerely † DBD 12:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Charles has left permanently. I'm sure he will be back. Don't beat yourself about the head just because you said rude things to him - most of us have done that at one time or another, and it's very hard not to when faced with the kind of extreme provocation some users habitually trade in. I recommend you just try to avoid emotive language in future. Deb (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)