Renamed user 189543756 (talk | contribs) |
Renamed user 189543756 (talk | contribs) →March 2022: background and address comments at ANI |
||
Line 464: | Line 464: | ||
<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''2 weeks''' for persistently making [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive edits]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 17:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock --> |
<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''2 weeks''' for persistently making [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive edits]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 17:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock --> |
||
{{unblock|reason=Is this a joke, disruptive editing. I’m sorry why have I been blocked here and by an admin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=1075568723 canvassed] by an editor who has attempted to get me blocked and harassed me? Conflict of interest much. Thank you, is this a mates favour [[User:DWC LR|dwc lr]] ([[User talk:DWC LR#top|talk]]) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock|reason=Is this a joke, disruptive editing. I’m sorry why have I been blocked here and by an admin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=1075568723 canvassed] by an editor who has attempted to get me blocked and harassed me? Conflict of interest much. Thank you, is this a mates favour. In response to Drmies explanation at ANI, for the record I contested a controversial undiscussed page move, politely ask they go to RM get reported to ANI, why? Secondly I did not introduce into the discussion the question of “Legal Recognition”, I talked about Wikipedia policy, sources then the next contributors came in with words to affect, can’t be this because the law says so (not actually citing this alleged law). I called them out on this with another scenario which they misconstrue and then here we are.The complaints are completely spurious no admin pays any attention, that causes a user to directly contact an admin I assume they have a prior relationship of some kind with it does not seem a random event, the same admin bans me. Any fair minded person will see this block as completely wrong. [[User:DWC LR|dwc lr]] ([[User talk:DWC LR#top|talk]]) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)}} |
Revision as of 17:52, 7 March 2022
|
|
Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
- This permission does not give you any special status or authority
- Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
- You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
- If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
- If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you help please - again, a nomination for deletion
Hello - once again, a page on an heir to a House headship is being nominated for deletion. It's here:
Bernhard, Prince of Sayne-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein.
Might you be able to weigh in? Thank you!
PR PR (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Giovanni Nepomuceno
Dear DWC LR, I think that there is a common error on the web about the name of the last prince of Tuscany. It's absolutely sure that is name was Giovanni Nepomuceno (Johann Nepomuk in German). I posted the photography of the original page of baptisimal register, which is in the archive of the Dome of Florence. It's an original paper: its value is unquestionable. So, I think; if there is a common error about an historical person, we have the duty to correct it.--Kaho Mitsuki (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Idris al-Senussi
Hey. Sorry to bring this up again, but I've opened a thread at Talk:List of current pretenders that I think you should take a look at. Please let me know if you have any objections about my suggestions. Nightw 16:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I was wrong and i agree with you now. But also i brought up something that i wanted you to see for your opion. Spongie555 (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you know how to propose a merge for his article? Spongie555 (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- That should be good now. Except isn't it el-Senussi not El Senussi? Spongie555 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- On the right of his picture on his offical website it says el-Senussi. But it should atleast have the dash between El and Senussi. Spongie555 (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone will object to the merge because I doubt many are evening watching his article. But there could always be someone coming out of the blue and object but not that likely. Spongie555 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- On the right of his picture on his offical website it says el-Senussi. But it should atleast have the dash between El and Senussi. Spongie555 (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- That should be good now. Except isn't it el-Senussi not El Senussi? Spongie555 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
How can Idris lay claim to a throne which he says should not exist?
Did you not listen to the part of the interview where Idris said that the new Libyan constitution should not have a monarchy? If this is what he wants, then how can you say he lays claim to a throne which he says should not exist? This seems to me to be a radical repositioning by Idris. Only weeks ago in interviews he seemed to be hinting that he might want to be king. Now he's saying that there should be no Libyan king. Note, I kept mention in the article of Idris' royal family membership, but you inserted into the article that Idris' claim to the throne of Libya is current. Could you please explain to me how you justify this seeming contradiction? Scott P. (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again DWC, I put a reply to your message to me over at the Idris article talk page. Enjoy. 00:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Mohammed El Senussi
Hey DWC LR could you fix the citation templates in the Mohammed El Senussi article? Someone messed them up and they need to be fixed. I'm going to be busy soon so I won't have enough time. So I asked you since not there is not many people actively editing his article. Spongie555 (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help on the citation templates. His article is now more improved. I think we should also email his website and ask if we can have a better picture because I don't really like the painting we currently have. I hope to possible get his article to GA if we can. Spongie555 (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for along time to respond. He has kept a low profile till lately so I don't know if there is much. Also could you change the name of the Hasan as-Senussi article to Hasan as-Senussi, Crown Prince of Libya according to what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) says. Spongie555 (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
RM
I did not request a move, I was just correcting errors in the pages. If you want to request a move I might support your request. Clumpytree (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Again, if you want to write that some English language sources call them "princess" or "prince" or that some monarchist consider them royal, I would not change that, but Wikipedia is an encyclopdia which should stick to objective neutral truth and not to gossip talk of magazins, and therefore wikipedia itself should not claim that they are some sort of royalty, which they aren't. Clumpytree (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just for you, I added that they are also known as Prince... and Princess... If you explicitly want to add that their non-existing titles are not recognised in Germany you can do that yourself. Clumpytree (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is not NPOV to say they have titles which they do not, even if you make a footnote that the title you say they have does not exist. It does not matter if some people believe they have the titles, fact is they do not. The only institution that can make a decision on whether there is a Prince of Hanover (Germany) is the German people and their elected representatives, and they have made that decision. - Clumpytree (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I do not deny editing from a POV, everybody has a POV, so do you. They do not have a title that is a simple verifiable fact. The one how does disruptive editing here is you. Clumpytree (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is not NPOV to say they have titles which they do not, even if you make a footnote that the title you say they have does not exist. It does not matter if some people believe they have the titles, fact is they do not. The only institution that can make a decision on whether there is a Prince of Hanover (Germany) is the German people and their elected representatives, and they have made that decision. - Clumpytree (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just for you, I added that they are also known as Prince... and Princess... If you explicitly want to add that their non-existing titles are not recognised in Germany you can do that yourself. Clumpytree (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Legal name
Sorry I do not have a source for his official legal name, as I said, from the German wikipedia it seems nobody there seems to really know. This people tend to be quite hesitant to being open about there actual name, because otherwise it would become to obvious that they are not actual royals... anyway, I appriciate that you still try to constructively work together with me after again destroying all the improvement I did to the articles... not sure yet if I will continue to try to fight for some accuracy here. Best wishes, Clumpytree (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prince Ludwig Rudolph of Hanover. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Magioladitis (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
June 2011
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
External links
Please read wP:ELNO and note that among the links mentioned there are personal websites. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It looks like you're the editor who added most of the names on the template.[1] Do we have a source for members of the family? If so perhaps they could be added to the Pahlavi dynasty article. If not, then perhaps we should remove them. Will Beback talk 03:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- They are listed in Burkes Royal Families of the World, Volume 2, Africa and the Middle East. And for up to date information the Royal Ark. - dwc lr (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Crown Prince Nicholas II of Montenegro
Apologies for the revert, when I saw "rv" in your edit summary I assumed that you had just performed a straight revert and didn't realise you had added a ref. Dbpjmuf (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Revert
Why did you do this revert? [2] Will Beback talk 05:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well I guess you could say I was not paying much attention :-) - dwc lr (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please be more careful. The editor whose work you reverted said you did it just because he was the editor. If so, that's poor practice. Will Beback talk 21:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
French royal articles being moved without discussion
Thoughts? For instance: Talk:Henri_d'Orléans,_count_of_Paris#Move_to_.22Henri_d.27Orl.C3.A9ans.2C_count_of_Paris.22. Is there any issue with this? Seven Letters 14:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- We should also look at the titling of the Orléans and Bourbons anyway, there have been a few moves in the past, and in the past few days, that have made it a mess. I'm not convinced the house names are necessary. Seven Letters 14:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I wish Wikipedia would move more toward having its own style guide for individual sections of articles. The common usage thing is divisive and can be played and twisted any which way, such was with this user's use of French articles. Seven Letters 14:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I have never really understood trying to find a common usage for royals as often there are many different titles and so on that can be used to refer to them. The only common usage I could understand for royals is the common form in English of someone's name, ie Wilhelm/William Friedrich/Frederick etc. - dwc lr (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Nicholas Romanov
You've reverted three times now. Brozan doesn't use the full form of the name, and so can only be used as a source for the title, not for the name and title together. DrKiernan (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- The guys name is Nicholas Romanov and his title is Prince of Russia who cares that it does say excatly 'Nicholas Romanovich Romanov, Prince of Russia'. What, do you think for example the majority of sources to the British heir will use the exact term 'Charles, Prince of Wales' or 'Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden' I doubt it very much. What a very petty and sad act removing it for that reason. - dwc lr (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't follow. There are plenty of sources for those alternatives and "Prince of Wales" and "Crown Princess of Sweden" are official titles bestowed by the governments of those countries. Romanov doesn't have any official titles as far as I'm aware. DrKiernan (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- What government bestowed the title 'Prince' on him then? So you allow the title Prince but not the full title Prince of Russia because it sounds too official? - dwc lr (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- He is given as "Prince Nicholas Romanov" in many sources, notably Massie. I assume they do it to distinguish him from the last tsar. "Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia" is just his Website. Sarkozy's article doesn't begin, Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France. Kauffner (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- What government bestowed the title 'Prince' on him then? So you allow the title Prince but not the full title Prince of Russia because it sounds too official? - dwc lr (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't follow. There are plenty of sources for those alternatives and "Prince of Wales" and "Crown Princess of Sweden" are official titles bestowed by the governments of those countries. Romanov doesn't have any official titles as far as I'm aware. DrKiernan (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Prince of Russia is a title. President of France more a position. If you wanted to compare those two articles it would be like saying Nicholas Romanov, Head of the House of Romanov. - dwc lr (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
SP Royalty Websites
Thanks for your note. Yes, we'll need to remove these citations. It's possible that a particular webpage might be a copy or an excerpt from a published source, in which case we could replace the hot link with a non-linked citation to the original publication. There's no reason to immediately remove material that had been sourced to the websites, unless they are quotations or derogatory material. Of course, if someone challenges the material later then new sources would have to be found. Will Beback talk 03:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- That'd be great. Will Beback talk 22:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Renamed user 189543756/Archive 2! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Le Petit Gotha
Does this book have a line of succession for the French Legitimists? Emerson 07 (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- If this does not contain a line of succession, then the use of this book as a source for the Orleanist order of succession is basically original research, right?Emerson 07 (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
formatted comment
Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that in this edit I made a slight formatting change to what you wrote on Template talk:Monarchism. (So that we can see what images we're discussing.) I know it's bad practice to edit others' comments and I hope you don't mind. Feel free to revert obviously. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
R&N Userbox
Hello, DWC LR! You can add the new userbox for the Royalty & Nobility taskforce, {{User WikiProject Royalty and Nobility}}, to your userpage! - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Could improve Alexander, Margrave of Meissen a bit so it reads more neutrally since it seem that people on here are highlighting Albert's claim over his? Line of succession to the former Saxon thrones should be updated, too. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Could you update Line of succession to the former Saxon thrones to show that Albert is dead?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Londonderry/Derry
Thanks for your support DWC LR. I honestly think both Derry and Londonderry are common, but it seems a compromise is a stretch for some. I've never heard of so much bureaucracy. 5 users have quoted COMMON NAME as the reason for their objection yet disappear when pushed for proof. Its a joke. Get enough users together who agree that Hitler was the Son of God, and it doesnt matter what a the fair neutral view is.46.7.113.111 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Line of succession to the former Saxon thrones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spiegel (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) 10:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Mark Asquith
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Mark Asquith requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The article Prince Philipp of Hesse (b. 1970) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Obscure person, not closely related to any current ruling house or plausible pretender to any deposed throne, notability challenged nearly 2 weeks ago and no response.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Prince Otto Heinrich of Hanover is now an article for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Albanian Throne
Many thanks for your additions to the Line of Succession to the Albanian Throne. The article now looks very good. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Prince Pedro Luís of Orléans-Braganza had been nominated for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sandstein 15:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Prince Casimir of Bourbon-Two Sicilies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prince Casimir of Bourbon-Two Sicilies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Casimir of Bourbon-Two Sicilies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Mcewan (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prince Wilhelm of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rotenburg (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) 10:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Prince Christian of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
p
Precious
nobility
Thank you for quality articles on noble people, such as Prince Christian of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld, correcting their names and succession in gnomish work, avoiding clutter, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 527th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Seven years ago, you were recipient no. 527 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Koháry
Did the name "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Koháry" ever existed and if so was it really used by every member or that often by he non-ruling descendants of Maria Antonia Koháry de Csábrág and Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? And was the title 2nd, 3rd, etc Fürst Koháry used after Ferencz József Koháry de Csábrág?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Principality of Anhalt-Mühlingen for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Principality of Anhalt-Mühlingen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Anhalt-Mühlingen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1983) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg Königlicher Prinz von Großbritannien und Irland“."]</ref> [[baptism|christened]] as ''Ernst August Andreas Philipp Constantin Maximilian Rolf Stephan
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Line of succession to the former Romanian throne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gandul (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) 08:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I have started a sockpuppet investigation of Zumbala based on their edits to List of current pretenders. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Princess Felicitas of Prussia
The article Princess Felicitas of Prussia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Not clear that this person is notable or a princess, since she was born after Germany became a republic.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, DWC LR. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, DWC LR. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, DWC LR. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, DWC LR. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Talk page please.
Don't forget 3RR. The onus is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion of disputed content. Guy (help!) 16:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
July 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. There has been much debate about the fake archdukes, and your view does not have consensus. You're welcome to create an RfC is you like, but this is Wikipedia, not Royalpedia, and we go with the facts on the ground. You can't be an archduke of a country that has a law forbidding anyone from being an archduke. Guy (help!) 22:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Are you for real? These are not ‘my views’ I’m inserting the views of reliable sources... - dwc lr (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Archduke Markus of Austria.
As has been explained to you at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Of archdukes and princes, you cannot be a king of a place that has abolished the monarchy, you cannot be a prince of a place that has abolished princes, and you cannot be an archduke of a place that abolished archduchies in 1918. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Guy Macon lol your getting very desperate, since when was adding reliably sourced information against Wikipedia policy? - dwc lr (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- When there is a clear consensus against it. You have been warned twice. It is likely that further disruption will result in a block.
- I am Unwatching this page and telling Wikipedia to ignore your pings (it's in the preferences) now. You can reply if you wish, but I won't see it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The article Pedro Thiago of Orléans-Braganza has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Another article about an obscure member of a former royal house which was deposed some time ago.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The article Duke Carl Gregor of Mecklenburg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Obscure member of former royal family.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
There is now an AFD. PatGallacher (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Notable?
So have you seen this (a number of edits from my hands the last 2-3 days) compared with this? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The article Line of succession to the former Mecklenburg thrones has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
A lot of trivia and original research, we are tending to delete these articles.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The article Prince Wilhelm of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Obscure person.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The two articles above are now at AFD. PatGallacher (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Request
Greetings dear...you have a very good understanding of Wiki policies and have also voted at Afd's for many Royalty related articles. I would appreciate if you could provide your opinion on this discussion. Best regards 185.205.141.123 (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Precious anniversary
Eight years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicholas, Crown Prince of Montenegro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orthodox. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The article Konrad, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The only secondary, independent RS here are essentially pedigree-level info in the AGdH and a trivial mention in a summary of a court decision involving him. Everything else is primary and non-independent.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JoelleJay (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Konrad, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konrad, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
JoelleJay (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ixocactus (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)}}
March 2022
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Renamed user 189543756 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Is this a joke, disruptive editing. I’m sorry why have I been blocked here and by an admin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=1075568723 canvassed] by an editor who has attempted to get me blocked and harassed me? Conflict of interest much. Thank you, is this a mates favour. In response to Drmies explanation at ANI, for the record I contested a controversial undiscussed page move, politely ask they go to RM get reported to ANI, why? Secondly I did not introduce into the discussion the question of “Legal Recognition”, I talked about Wikipedia policy, sources then the next contributors came in with words to affect, can’t be this because the law says so (not actually citing this alleged law). I called them out on this with another scenario which they misconstrue and then here we are.The complaints are completely spurious no admin pays any attention, that causes a user to directly contact an admin I assume they have a prior relationship of some kind with it does not seem a random event, the same admin bans me. Any fair minded person will see this block as completely wrong. [[User:DWC LR|dwc lr]] ([[User talk:DWC LR#top|talk]]) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Is this a joke, disruptive editing. I’m sorry why have I been blocked here and by an admin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=1075568723 canvassed] by an editor who has attempted to get me blocked and harassed me? Conflict of interest much. Thank you, is this a mates favour. In response to Drmies explanation at ANI, for the record I contested a controversial undiscussed page move, politely ask they go to RM get reported to ANI, why? Secondly I did not introduce into the discussion the question of “Legal Recognition”, I talked about Wikipedia policy, sources then the next contributors came in with words to affect, can’t be this because the law says so (not actually citing this alleged law). I called them out on this with another scenario which they misconstrue and then here we are.The complaints are completely spurious no admin pays any attention, that causes a user to directly contact an admin I assume they have a prior relationship of some kind with it does not seem a random event, the same admin bans me. Any fair minded person will see this block as completely wrong. [[User:DWC LR|dwc lr]] ([[User talk:DWC LR#top|talk]]) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Is this a joke, disruptive editing. I’m sorry why have I been blocked here and by an admin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=1075568723 canvassed] by an editor who has attempted to get me blocked and harassed me? Conflict of interest much. Thank you, is this a mates favour. In response to Drmies explanation at ANI, for the record I contested a controversial undiscussed page move, politely ask they go to RM get reported to ANI, why? Secondly I did not introduce into the discussion the question of “Legal Recognition”, I talked about Wikipedia policy, sources then the next contributors came in with words to affect, can’t be this because the law says so (not actually citing this alleged law). I called them out on this with another scenario which they misconstrue and then here we are.The complaints are completely spurious no admin pays any attention, that causes a user to directly contact an admin I assume they have a prior relationship of some kind with it does not seem a random event, the same admin bans me. Any fair minded person will see this block as completely wrong. [[User:DWC LR|dwc lr]] ([[User talk:DWC LR#top|talk]]) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}