Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:39, 23 September 2012

Main page appearance: Francis Walsingham

This is a note to let the main editors of Francis Walsingham know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 24, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/June 24, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Francis Walsingham (c.1532–1590) was principal secretary to Queen Elizabeth I of England from 20 December 1573 until his death, and is popularly remembered as her "spymaster". A committed Protestant, during the reign of the Catholic Queen Mary I of England he joined other expatriates in exile in Switzerland and northern Italy until Mary's death and the accession of her Protestant half-sister, Elizabeth. Walsingham rose from relative obscurity to become one of the small coterie who directed the Elizabethan state, overseeing foreign, domestic and religious policy. He served as English ambassador to France in the early 1570s, and witnessed the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. As principal secretary, he was a supporter of exploration, colonization, the plantation of Ireland, and the use of England's maritime power. He worked to bring Scotland and England together. Overall, his foreign policy demonstrated a new understanding of the role of England as a maritime, Protestant power in an increasingly global economy. He oversaw operations that penetrated the heart of Spanish military preparation, gathered intelligence from across Europe, disrupted a range of plots against Elizabeth, and secured the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Images of the article of Diana, Princess of Wales

Hi dear DrK! Sorry for taking your precious time. As you are a really good editor, I'm here to ask for a help from you. Surely you know when an image should be used on the article and which images are unnecessary to use and which of them are important, so it will be really good if you take a look at the article of Diana, Princess of Wales. The pictures are to many and I don't know which of them should be removed, but you know what to do. If all of them are necessary, there is no need to remove them, but if you think some of them are unnecessary, please remove them yourself. Thank you very much. Keivan.f 20:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Now I think there's no need, because I removed some pictures and I sorted them. However, I will be very happy to know your opinion and if you think some pictures must be removed, please tell me. Keivan.f 07:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you should cut File:Princess do.jpg: it doesn't have a fair use rationale or any author information. I also think you should remove the Moldovan stamps (File:Stamp of Moldova 375.gif) as these do not appear to fall in the public domain (there's an argument about it on commons). Even if the stamps are themselves in the public domain in Moldova, the images on the stamps are almost certainly not in the public domain in the United States since the individual photographs are from copyrighted sources that the Moldovan authorities have copied. DrKiernan (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I also had another question. Should I add the name of Sarah to the Template:British Royal Family agian? I also can write the sources which show that she is still a member. Also the template says that we should add the name of sovereign and all living princes and princesses, so we should add the name of Sarah as she is a British princess by marriage and mother of two British princesses by blood, am I wrong? Keivan.f 20:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Dan was against it, and I can't see a way to compromise or develop a clear consensus on the issue. Personally, I can see that she at least was a member so I don't mind if she's included, but I can also see that she is currently a semi-detached member at best so I understand Dan's reluctance to include her. Unlike the rest of the family, she isn't included in any public royal events as far as I can make out. DrKiernan (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: your request

You didn't want to go underdressed, try this ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Monstrous carbuncle

Thanks for sensible re-edit - I think that solves the problem!FClef (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests#Mumia Abu-Jamal Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

My files

Isn't it just like you to follow me around. Let me make this clear, I will not allow a speedy tag on my file. It was wrongly deleted and there was zero support for that decision, two keeps and only one delete. Get proper consensus for it to go, or leave it alone. Fry1989 19:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You should have taken it to deletion review rather than re-upload it. Either way, the uploader is not supposed to remove the tag. A third-party may do so. DrKiernan (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you've also broken your 1RR restriction on that file. DrKiernan (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Your incredible work has not gone unnoticed.

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your ongoing massive efforts ! wow ! ThomasMoore1852 (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I was investigation some minor vandalism on the Lord Byron article and the resources at my disposal led me immediately to you, and in turn your incredible efforts in anti-vandalism.

		The tireless cybernetic contributor Barnstar
		I would like to acknowledge the vast amount of work that you're getting done through the use of software-enhanced editing, keep up the great work. ThomasMoore1852 (talk) 15:49, 7 Jan 2025 (UTC)_

ThomasMoore1852 (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Mumia Abu-Jamal

This is a note to let the main editors of Mumia Abu-Jamal know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 11, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/July 11, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Mumia Abu-Jamal (born Wesley Cook on April 24, 1954) is an American convict, serving a life sentence for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. He was sentenced to death at his first trial in July 1982, and his case became an international cause célèbre. Before his arrest, he was an activist and radio journalist who became President of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists. He was a member of the Black Panther Party until October 1970. Supporters and opponents disagreed on the appropriateness of the death penalty, his guilt, and whether he received a fair trial. He was described as "perhaps the world's best known death-row inmate". During his imprisonment he has published several books and other commentaries, notably Live from Death Row (1995). In 2008, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the murder conviction but ordered a new capital sentencing hearing because the jury was improperly instructed. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court also allowed his conviction to stand but ordered the appeals court to reconsider its decision as to the sentence. In 2011, the Third Circuit again affirmed the conviction as well as its decision to vacate the death sentence, and the District Attorney of Philadelphia announced that prosecutors would no longer seek the death penalty. He was removed from death row in January 2012.(more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Monarchy of the UK

Thanks for your changes to my editing. You're a better writer than I am! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I answered to your remark on the talkpage of Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Sorry it took me many editing but I think it is worth to look at. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

How many times have we had this discussion?

If you keep removing them over nitpicking details like the colour of the crown, but are unable to provide a source against it, that makes it your personal opinion. If you keep treating these articles like your property rather than a colaborative project, I'll take it to dispute resolution. You DO NOT own these articles, you do not get to command what stays and what goes. Fry1989 19:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Fry1989, User:DrKiernan". Thank you. --Fry1989 19:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

DRN thread

Hello there DrKiernan. I've left a message at User talk:Fry1989#DRN thread about the possibility of reopening the DRN thread. Let me know what you think. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 02:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

William of Orange

Regarding this, just thought it was appropriate considering the standing Mr Orange has amongst that section of the community in NI. — JonC 10:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Lilpepper

Hey DrKiernan, I saw you blocked User:Lilpepper for 31 hours due to vandalism. Is it possible to extend it to indefinite because it looks like a WP:VOA. Thanks. -- Luke (Talk) 19:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Confused....

I noticed that you had edited the Barakzai dynasty article(back in May), so I thought I would seek your advice. It states the Durrani Empire fell in 1826, yet on the Durrani Empire article it states 1978 in the info box!? And should not the Emirate of Afghanistan article be merged with the Barakzai dynasty article? Are they not one and the same?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil

Thank you for taking the time to go through the article and making corrections. Your edits have certainly saved me some time. • Astynax 09:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I also wanted to ask whether you have any objection to being listed as a co-nominator on the FAC? I don't know if you have any other articles nominated at this time, or I would have included you. • Astynax 15:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a very generous offer. I would naturally be very pleased to be included, but if Lecen objects then I would respect his wishes. Unfortunately, we were getting on well until May when I put my foot badly in it with an ill-judged comment, and now our levels of trust have sank again. DrKiernan (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, as I wished to take care of that before the nomination went on further. I just emailed Lecen and he has no objection to you being included as a co-nominator. I hope the FAC process will go smoothly, and I thank you again for your help with the article. • Astynax 15:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help during the FAC process. The article has now been promoted! Congratulations. • Astynax 15:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Coming as requested, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau

I am going through a list of articles (there are about 1000 of them) with AWB which include a link to "http:genealogy.euweb.cz" requesting to them better source.

When I arrived at Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau I noticed that you had edited the article and removed the unreliable sources, replacing some of them with reliable ones. On the whole I think that this is a positive step. The trouble is that some of the facts that were supported with unreliable sources no longer have any citation.

As I see it there are three options open to us:

1. Remove the unreliable sources but leave text that may be correct in place.
2. Remove the unreliable sources all the text which was previously supported by unreliable sources and is not supported by the new reliable source.
3. Note the source as unreliable and request a better source, leaving what may or may not turn out to be information that can be supported by reliable sources and a date stamp so after a suitable period of time the citation and text that is allegedly supported by the citation can be removed.

With an seni-automated tool such as AWB, I have gone for the option number 3, as I hope it will prompt editors who watch the page to look for a better source such as you have done, but in the meantime it allows the reader to see that the facts may not be reliable. There is a list of useful templates on the documentation page of {{Citation needed}} the two I am using are {{Self-published source}} and{{Better source}}. -- PBS (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Since removing them from Carolina, I've started moving them inline when appropriate: e.g. . DrKiernan (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Two questions!

First: Was Sarah a member of the Royal Family Order of Queen Elizabeth II? I think as the daughter-in-law of the Queen, she was a member, What do you think? and also, did she have any honour or honorary military appointments?

I can't find any listed anywhere.

Second: Was Wallis Simpson a British princess by marriage and a member of the British Royal Family? Should we add her name in the British Royal Family tree, List of members of the British Royal Family through history and Template: British princesses by marriage? Keivan.f 11:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the letters patent in 1937 that exclude her from holding royal styles can be read as also excluding her from being a princess or a member of the royal family. DrKiernan (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. Keivan.f 07:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Another question

Hello, I just translated to the Spanish the article of Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, and my desire is to be featured article in Spanish. I have a question about the sentence: "Rumours that Prince Albert Victor may have committed, or been responsible for, the Jack the Ripper murders were first mentioned in print in 1962." Who wrote about the association with the Ripper in 1962? I thought that Stowwell in 1970 had been the first one. Thanks in advance.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This used to be detailed in the article Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories, which was merged into Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution. I've copied it out from an old version for you below. DrKiernan (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

In 1962, author Philippe Jullian published a biography of Prince Albert Victor's father, in which he made a passing reference to rumours that Albert Victor might have been responsible for the murders. Jullian's book appears to be the first published reference naming Albert Victor as a Ripper suspect. Though Jullian did not detail either the date or source of the rumours, it is possible that the rumour derived indirectly from Dr. Thomas Eldon Alexander Stowell, even though Stowell's own suspicions were at that time unpublished. In 1960, Stowell had shared his theory with the writer Colin Wilson, who in turn told Harold Nicolson, a biographer loosely credited as a source of "hitherto unpublished anecdotes" in Jullian's book. Nicolson could have communicated Stowell's theory to Jullian.

One more: Is Yvonne Demoskoff a reliable source? Why? --Rosymonterrey (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think she's useful as a starting point, but I don't think she's usable as a source herself. You've got to see where she gets her information from (she usually gives her sources). If her source is reliable (i.e. a book or newspaper), then I usually check the book or newspaper itself and use that. If her source is a web forum or an email message from another enthusiast, then I don't use it. DrKiernan (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I thank you so much. I live in Mexico and I have no access to sources like that, so in details that I do not know I have to rely on the author of the original version. Sorry for my bad English.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your English is fine. For Albert Victor, Yvonne has given lots of print sources, so I think we can safely assume that the information is correct. I probably checked it against The Times report at some time. DrKiernan (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Appearance

Another crowned lady coming soon, - I could imagine the blurb to mention Elizabeth ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Monarchy templates

Why do you change the template colours of Australia and New Zealand? I am think having colour like Canada will make it better than a boring plain grey.Mr Hall of England (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Because of accessibility issues. On the color of the upper bar, yellow writing on green is difficult to read, particularly for color-blind users, and the contrast between grey and black is not always clear. On the color of the links, links should be obvious as links, but they are not obvious if they appear as black type, as that looks like ordinary text. DrKiernan (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

Please see my explanation for edit revert on Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother on Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Thanks Castlemate (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain your changes to Template:British ministries

Where are you getting your information with regards to the colour? This has been as it was for a while, as a way to match the national colours of the UK. It made the template stand out, after I had finished cleaning it up from the mess it was before. You must provide a better explanation before you do such a thing. RGloucester (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The IP that made the change gave no justification . There should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles.

The national colors of Britain are not red, black, blue, mauve and white. The project uses standard colors: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Templates, not the same scheme as used by WikiProject Canada. DrKiernan (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

An IP did not make the change, I did, long before the IP touched anything. Look at all my edits on the template. I did it to make the template stand out, and while the colours are not the “exact” colours, they are the closest I could find. Red, white and blue. I’m the one that cleaned up the template, it looked entirely different prior to me doing what I did. Nowhere at that page you mention does it say that non-standard colours cannot be used. I even mentioned it in my edit change, somewhere. I think my justification is adequate. And the template is does not deviate from any project rules. RGloucester (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

An IP made the edit on 11 May. The edit involved is linked above in a diff. There are no edits altering the color before that. DrKiernan (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre, but that IP has to be me. Somehow I must’ve not been logged in for a short time. It was only on 11 May that that IP made edits, and only in a short time. My mistake, I suppose. All the edits it made are definitely mine. Regardless, the rest of what I wrote still stands. RGloucester (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Here I am, again bothering. I have translated several articles about members of the royalty of the United Kingdom, some of them have reached GA or FA status and I still translating others. As you're involved in the creation of many of them and have access to the sources, I'm afraid you're going to see me a lot.

I've fixed a Legacy section of Albert Victor article with the information that you gave me, later I researched and found other sources about that. My questions now are:

• Which is the date of the commitment of Albet Victor and Mary of Teck? In the articles of Mary and Albert says December of 1891, but in the article of Edward VII says that in 1982 (this is a little difficult because Albert died in January of 1892).

• In the Spanish Misplaced Pages we can't use nobility titles in the articles name. I can't name the article Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale. The Albert article was titled Albert Victor of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but someone moved it to Albert Victor of Clarence. Is it correct?

Thanks a lot!... And thank you also for your comments about my English, you're very kind ;)--Rosymonterrey (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

One more thing. Can I move this image to Commons? --Rosymonterrey (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out that discrepancy -- I've corrected the Edward VII article.
• I don't really know what the rules are for article titles on the Spanish wikipedia. They seem to make up their own titles rather than use the most common name, which seems to be "Albert Victor, duque de Clarence"?
• I'm sure moving the file is fine. DrKiernan (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Milhist coord?

Hey DrK, we've had a request for more coords to cover diverse periods and regions ... being a coord might help you focus some attention on royalty and nobility articles. Interested? (I just skimmed your talk page and some links ... really impressive range of skills and activities!) - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

One more thing ... Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre looks good now, if you're interested in reviewing it at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth's sister

That's not removed information. I noticed most articles are written like that. If anything, noting that her sister was four years younger would be a considerable improvement. The only difference I see is that people will perhaps have questions about her having another sibling, although since no others are mentioned this would be acceptable. I decided to revert, please let me know if you have any conflict with that. Spelling Style (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course the book was not written about 1950. Did I learn this incorrectly? It's supposed to be common to refer to things by their years, ex. "She wrote a 2010 biography regarding her career" doesn't mean it was about 2010. It's the same thing, she published a book in 2010. I still fail to see your logic in removing my edits. Spelling Style (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Your absolute insistence on GDR flag and coat with gold instead of black

I do not understand why it is so difficult for you to simply upload over the current flag and coat of arms files we have on Commons. If you and that other user are right, then the process should be as easy as cherry pie. Instead you chose to upload it separately twice causing a version war (whether that was your intent or not), and now uploading it locally to bypass the Commons files. It makes no sense why you consistently choose to take a ten mile walk when all you gotta do it walk around the block. You seem to love doing things ten times more difficult than they need to be. All you had to do was go to the files' talk page, discuss the issue, and as long as there is a simple consensus or no objections, change the files and presto. Fry1989 16:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Then change the files. DrKiernan (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It's very flattering that you hold me in such high regard that you think it can't be done without my consent, but I really hold very little power outside of the agreement of others. I may object to the change to gold, but my objection means nothing if others agree with you. If you're right, then getting that agreement would be incredibly easy. Just look at the second DR, I spoke of due process, something you obviously have no faith in or else you'd give it a try. This is incredibly childish to upload separately 3 times now instead of taking the easy path. Fry1989 17:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There is consensus at : four editors are agreed and one—you—has disagreed. I'm fed up with your hypocrisy and lies. Don't come to my talk page again unless it is to tell me that you have reverted to the official version in compliance with consensus on the talk page, in which case the file in dispute can remain deleted as a duplicate. DrKiernan (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If there is such a consensus, go change the damn file and stop being lazy telling me I have to do your job for you! Nobody says I have to agree with you, and I certainly don't have to do your work for you for it to be done. Put in an ounce of work you'll get a pound of success. You're the one who has such little faith in the process that you think I'll stand in your way to such a degree that things can't be done unless I sign on. I certainly think you';re wrong, but that won't stop you from succeeding if you're right. Whether you think so or not, I actually do respect consensus, begrudgingly or not. And don't tell me I can't come to your talk page, you can't ban me from talking to you about an issue YOU caused. Fry1989 17:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Evans, Stewart P. (October 2002). "On the Origins of the Royal Conspiracy Theory". Ripper Notes. Published online by Casebook: Jack the Ripper. Accessed 6 May 2008.
2. Cook, pp.8–9