If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place ((Talkback|FactStraight)) on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Thanks for the explanation regarding the examples and their usefulness. I'd now tend to agree - replied on the talk page also concerning your citation style point.

I've nominated the article for Good Article status and if you've the time or the inclination, a review would be much appreciated. Thanks! Sotakeit (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FactStraight. I am afraid I don't agree with your revision of my addition to the Luxemburg article. From 1815 until 1839 Luxemburg had the same status that the Duchy of Limburg had from 1839 until 1867. Simultaneously a monarchy within the German Confederation AND a province of the Netherlands. I distinctly remember Luxemburg celebrating the 150th anniversary of its independence in 1989! Luxemburg became a fully independent country only in 1839. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you have been reverted, per WP:BRD it's not good practice to re-revert. The stable version of the article has never included the "surname" Windsor, so you'll need to seek consensus for your change on the article's talk page rather than just trying to push it through. Thanks, — Jon C.^ॐ 12:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source you cited claims to give an exhaustive presentation of HRH full styles and titles. As the wife of her husband, she automatically has the feminine forms of all his titles – she cannot technically only hold some. He is the Prince of Wales, she is his lawful wife, she is the Princess of Wales, whether that title is used or not. DBD 23:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are attributing that title to Camilla without a reliable source citation that is more authoritative than the Royal Family's and Prince of Wales' official websites. Once challenged, re-insertion of "Princess of Wales" on the grounds that "she automatically has the feminine form of all his titles" is inadmissable synthesis, given that she has never been accorded that title by the Crown. Even if such existed, it would have to be juxtaposed in the article with the engagement announcement and official website statement which give her restricted title, explicitly omitting "Princess of Wales". FactStraight (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that you are undoing my edits to the Wikipedia page on Prince George William of Hanover (1880–1912) and possibly other pages.

I've been editing the page to correct URLs to my web pages which are referenced in the Wikipedia page.

I'm not the editor or other contributor to the page but it does appear either I'm wasting your time or you are wasting my time by me inserting the correct URL whilst you are changing the URL back to non existent links?

Regards

Allan Raymond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanraymond (talk • contribs) 20:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal websites about topics other than yourself fail to meet Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources, violating Wikipedia's personal website prohibition. Although references to others' personal websites may be tolerated, despite being unacceptable for citations, it appears self-promotional to drive readers to your own site to verify facts in Wikipedia articles. While I have no doubt that it is not your intention to use Wikipedia as advertisement -- and therefore I have not reported it, I have substituted sources which Wikipedia accepts as reliable. FactStraight (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am not personally responsible for or contributed to the Wikipedia page on Prince George William of Hanover (1880–1912). Whoever is the author for reasons known to themselves must have decided to link to my personal web pages. My sole purpose in editing the Wikipedia page was to show that the URL(s) for my web pages has changed due to moving to a different Web Host. It is illogical to show incorrect URLs which I am sure you will concur? It was not my decision or involvement to show links from the Wikipedia page to my web pages and if anyone deems it appropriate then the links to my web site can be removed. I am not in the business of self promoting my web site by including links from Wikipedia page

Dear Fact Straight I am a historian and have studied the Bourbons of India and have a book written on the family that will be published at the end of the year. I respect your opinion but I have edited the page adding some things that are based on research. I do please ask you not to undo my contribution. Many thanks Thubten Namdrol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thubten Namdrol (talk • contribs) 23:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thubten Namdrol, thank you for clarifying that you expect to be able to provide reliable sources to substantiate the additions you have made to the Bourbons of India article. Please feel free to add those edits back into the article once you are able to include a published source which documents your allegations and which other editors here on Wikipedia can check to verify accuracy. Until then, please do not add the edits, since they cannot be verified. FactStraight (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When unsourced material involving BLPs is removed, you shouldn't just reinstate the claims. BLP policy can't be overriden on an article's talk page. This is not an uncommon problem with pretender related claims, I've run into it before. They must be reliably sourced. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FactStraight. Honestly, I'm very uncomfortable with using a "son/daughter" model, but the issue is that within the Georgian royal families the personal names recur so frequently that using simply "Prince/Princess X of Georgia" model will inevitably lead to complicated disambig problems. I'd welcome any suggestion as I also dislike the titles I use.--Kober^Talk 04:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comment on Talk (I've never done this before!) I understand your point regarding the "Gotha" I certainly agree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Nicholson (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC) bot|DPL bot]] (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It is clear that Hungarian nobility was created by the King of Hungary in Hungary (it is true that borders are no longer same, see Treaty of Trianon, so I think we don't need two categories for Hungarian nobility (Category:Hungarian nobility and Categor:Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary), because the two are one and same. For example the French nobility also do not have a category under the name of "Category:Nobility in the Kingdom of France". --Norden1990 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Norden1990 does not see a difference between Kingdom of Hungary and Hungary. His understanding of the Latin term Natio Hungarica for clear Slovak Person.[[1]] Some unconstructive discussion with this user.[[2]] User:Norden1990 also claimed: "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century", unfortunately his demasked POV edits: Jan Jesenius - Slovak person [[3]][[4]] or another nationality was not relevant... edits: [[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]]... And typical behavior, User:Norden1990 wrote "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid."[[9]] and here deleted name Oradea [[10]] or [[11]][[12]]. Indeed quality of the article first. Category:French nobility has a category under the name of the article French nobility and there is not article "Hungarian nobility", only Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. And this edit[[13]]? It needed new category: Jews in Kingdom of Hungary or something similar, also scientists in Kingdom of Hungary[[14]] etc. --Omen1229 (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for ruining my contrib. I mannaged to get a nice article in the NL wiki, but forget that i will do the same in here! You just deleted some crucial sources, have it your way! 109.131.48.240 (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss it there and try to get consensus. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question posed at the Elizabeth II RfC, at which you commented, has been amended [15] to clarify a potential misunderstanding. Please re-visit the question and your comment and amend if necessary. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello there,

if you feel that the name of the article is unwarranted, please feel free to open a discussion at the talk page and I can move the article back if there is consensus to it. I see it however falling into the category of rapid moves since there is a set format for Belgian monarchs. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting your inputs into the discussion that we have. I'd also like to invite if you can provide your inputs on our Dispute resolution at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Prince_George_of_Cambridge.23Title , given your knowledge on Royal Nobility articles. Pseud 14 (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Stop vandalising the article. If you feel like there needs something to change in the article open the discussion in the talk page and not just cutting out the important information out of the article. GeorgianJorjadze 18:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your views on my talk page. I am replying to your comments on the talk page of Bagrationi dynasty. FactStraight (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean your post dating 12 November 2011? GeorgianJorjadze 19:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary sounds a bit harsh. I sincerely hope it didn't offend you. I'm sure we agree at least about this edit. As for Margaretha, I tried to find more information about her, but to no avail. There is no indication that she is a notable individual. I'm sure you realize that merely being related to someone is not a notability criterium. She has no constitutional position in either of the countries. If all she does is attend weddings and "other family events", I don't see what makes her more notable than Sarah Obama - who presumably does the same. Another serious issue with the article, that inevitably accompanies lack of notability, is the amount of unsourced and inadequetely sourced information. If it were all removed, per BLP policy, nothing substantial would remain. Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree. She is legally a princess of two monarchies, a dual status that has become so rare as to be unique. Moreover, it is a legally regulated form of public official and, by its nature, notable. Sisters and sisters-in-law of elected presidents are not normally subsidized, hold no official titles, do not have their marriages and those of their descendants regulated by law. IMHO, they belong to a unique category of notable persons: dynasts. FactStraight (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do disagree, and I apologize if I ever implied that your opinion is senseless. I understand your argument, but I had to note that it is entirely contrary to WP:NOTINHERITED. The only legally regulated things about her are her titles. There must be more than tens of thousands of people with various legally recognized titles - from knights and dames to princes and princesses. That alone surely does not make them notable. Prince Franz of Liechtenstein is also a dynast - and he is actually entitled to succeed to a throne. I fail to see what makes him less notable than Margaretha. Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the acknowledgement of my concerns. I didn't merely say that Margaretha is a princess in two countries, but that "She is legally a princess of two monarchies, a dual status that has become so rare as to be unique" -- differentiating her from nobles and non-nobles who hold titles by pointing out that she legally holds dynastic titles, a status not shared by "tens of thousands" at all. WP:NOTINHERITED is a guideline point which I think is often applied over-broadly, specifically failing to take into account the unique status of dynasts who hold rare legal titles, who often receive state subsidies and/or defrayment of expenses based on their status (not as compensation for discharge of specific job duties), who receive coverage in news and books by virtue of that status, and whose marriages and those of their children are regulated unlike those of any other persons in their respective nations. So even if that point in the guideline were applicable broadly, I don't see that it should be applied in cases such as this, nor are we obliged to do so. FactStraight (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR states: 'more than three reverts' - that was number four - pls self-revert! --IIIraute (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR says you can't game the system by edit-warring up to the line in order to keep your preferred version intact: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring...The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Please desist and discuss on the talk page. FactStraight (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pls self-revert your fourth edit, or I will report you - and that's a promise. Thanks. --IIIraute (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to report us both, yourself also for not engaging in discussion of this matter on the talk page prior to making threats. FactStraight (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to worry - I will engage! There is no threat. You clearly violated 3RR, before posting on the talk-page. Please self-revert. I will not warn you again. The precondition for a talk-page discussion is, that you do respect WP policies. Thank you. --IIIraute (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, please do not threaten me again -- take it to the talk page. As of this writing you have yet to explain your rationale on the talk page, despite reverting my edit on the false ground that I maintained that the German nobility had been abolished. Now you are attempting to game the system which is every bit as much a violation as 3RR. If you wish to seek to reach consensus, the only place for that is on the talk page -- not in gaming the system. FactStraight (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What thoughts do you have on these issues Template talk:Viceroyalties of the Spanish Empire#Removal of Portugal or Talk:Portuguese Restoration War#‎de-Spanishizing?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's outside my area of historical focus. Good luck! FactStraight (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely do not know what else to do with this. It feels like I'm being bullied into submitting to any kind of accusations and - what's worse - into leaving that incorrect term in the article. Sorry! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that you feel frustrated in this matter, but I fear that I'm unable to usefully advise you since I believe that you continue to edit against consensus, and since I have explained how I came to that conclusion I have nothing more to add at this point. I clearly understand that you have a different interpretation, nonetheless I am unpersuaded and must respectfully disagree. Good luck! FactStraight (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have disclosed, you have bought into false claims that a source has been given to show Victoria listed as "The Crown Princess" elsewhere, but none whatsoever has actually been given, and the only consensus established is based on those false claims. Doesn't that concern you at all? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FactStraight, I am notifying you as an editor who has participated in previous discussions on this topic. We now have multiple reliable sources for the descent of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge from Edward IV. However, Virgosky has added sourced information which appears to contradict the finding (a typographical error according to Patrick Cracroft-Brennan) and repeatedly removes a sourced retraction of the same information which I subsequently added. The edit warring continues which is futile and harmful to Wikipedia. I would appreciate your help building consensus on the talk page in order to resolve the dispute. HelenOnline 09:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the discussion is currently being held at Talk:Family_of_Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge#Discussion_on_ancestry. HelenOnline 12:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles -- PBS (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Turns out I was wrong. I always assumed the Sonderburgs were the younger line, probably because they held their fief from the Dukes of Gottorp. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Surtsicna is apparently not going to accept the agreed compromise at the MOS RfC "These are traditional, rather than legal, styles and titles sometimes used by courtesy" is allowed to be inserted once into an appropriate place in relevant articles." As soon as you put that in a few articles Surtsicna removed them. It was not just you and me that agreed on this, user Hordaland also said "The statement, also quoted above, "With respect to these articles, it is reasonable to insert a disclaimer ..., as appropriate, that any titles and styles are traditional courtesies rather than legal...." (insert = mention within article text), would be fine as a guideline but not strict policy. I wouldn't worry about the navboxes (no disclaimer needed there)". As soon as you offered the compromise (thank you) I accepted it, I waited for a day or two to close the RfC specifically to see if Surtsicna was going to object, he said nothing, but as soon as the agreed upon compromise was started to be applied, he removes it. I do not want to argue about royalty any more, the question is why Surtsicna is refusing to accept consensus. I have left a message on Surtsicna's talk page, the reason why I am leaving this here on yours is that you and Surtsicna obviously share some of the same areas of interest in editing, I wonder if you have a good relationship with him and can persuade him to be reasonable, I really do not want to have to fight any more battles about this. Thank youSmeat75 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat75, I think you rushed to close the discussion before it deviated further from the track you wanted it on. I have commented below the archive tags. I can't see where the agreement/compromise is and how it was arrived at. It should be discussed there instead of splintered all over the place. Two or three users alone can't create a "compromise" when many other users are involved and discussing. Seven Letters 01:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back and look at the page on MOS again. I asked an experienced admin to evaluate the RfC, write a summary, and close it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were one of the main participants in previous RfC's on the subject, perhaps you would be interested to know that I started here a thread whose aim is to throw ideas around about potential improvements on how we denote people with pretensions to royal and feudal titles. (Apologies for the title of this message! I can't help introducing a bit of levity to "serious" subjects.) -The Gnome (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bolshevism and Communism mean the same thing. If someone is anti-bolshevik, he is also anti-communist. The fact that someone identifies bolshevikism with the Jews and is anti-semitic doesn't mean he isn't also anti-communist. An anti-semitic person would not identify Jews with something he supports.

I have studied history for over 50 years and know how to identify an anti-communist. I know what terms are used to describe an anti-communist. Are you saying the actual words "anti-communist" must be used and not words that mean the same thing like anti-bolshevik? If you disagree with my categorizing in one instance, this is not grounds for removing other entries where there can be no doubt.

I am sorry, but my computer skills are very limited. This is about all I can do on the computer. Also, my eyesignt is failing and I may not be able to do this much longer.

````VY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.109.113 (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may not use "anti-Semitism" as a synonym for "anti-Bolshevik": someone can be anti-Semitic and not be "anti-Bolshevik". Nor can you assume that someone who is anti-Bolshevik is, ipso facto, anti-Semitic. Nor does your "50 years experience" allow you to cut corners here: any anonymous contributor on Wikipedia can make the same assertion and we have no way of verifying their bona fides, so the proof must be visible in the source you cite. The problem is that you are not citing any sources, instead you are looking for "clues" that people have what you consider "anti-communist" affiliations, and then using that to state unequivocally that they are "anti-communist". That is considered synthesis and is not allowed on Wikipedia. So, yes, you can only label someone "anti-communist" on Wikipedia if a reliable source does so explicitly and, in the case of BLPs you can usually only safely label someone "anti-communist" if that person has described him/herself as such (look at the disagreement over Nelson Mandela's salleged affiliation with communism). Mere disagreement with some aspects of communist philosophy or activity does not establish that someone is "anti-communist" (or vice versa): Trotsky and Lenin disapproved of one another's politics, but that didn't make either man "anti-communist". Mensheviks were "anti-Bolshevik", but not necessarily anti-communist. You don't base your conclusions on sufficient evidence, and you fail to document whatever evidence you do rely upon with footnotes in each bio. FactStraight (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should get your Facts Straight on Greek History. Claiming that George II of Greece was not anti-communist suggests a lack of knowledge of modern Greek history and also of the US involvement in the Greek civil war. History is not hagiography and being a fan of royal genealogies does not necessarily mean the negation of serious cultural, social and political history. Depending on the time period "anti-communist" can mean different things... sure... the same way you can be anti-communist because of your Anarchist or socialist leanings... but in the case of George II of Greece and his supporters anti-communism also implied a clear hostility to democratic rules, and of course to the Greek Resistance (except for the ultra-right resistance movements) and the willingness to "recycle" former Greek Nazi collaborators by enlisting them in the royalist armed forces... It also often went together with anti-Seminitism as evidenced by Greek collaboration in the deportation and the spoliation of Greek Jews and even today by the present rise of the Greek ultra-right which is rabidly anti-communist and also anti-Semitic ! Any book on Greek history will confirm the anti-communism of George II of Greece : plse read Mark Mazower's books on Greek history Aerecinski (talk)Aerecinski —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FactStraight! I saw that you reversed my expansion of the article on Anna Bagration-Gruzinsky. I read your comment where you reversed the edit, and I now understand why you had to do so (regarding the NPOV being compromised and the inclusion of reliable, not solely self-published, sources). However, I do need to clarify that I do not have a Wikipedia editing account, and, therefore, I do not understand how I could be "blocked." I have corrected the portions of the article expansion that I believe you found objectionable, but please let me know if I still made any mistakes in sourcing. Thank you. -Seth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5900:3D6:8DA4:EF6:9527:CE19 (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my removal of Jenny Castle from the List of castles and fortresses in Switzerland, with the comment ever heard of Neuschwanstein Castle? Lots of alternative terms in English for bldgs in UK, eg Stately home, but Castle, Palace or Fort elsewhere, which, to be honest, I do not quite understand.

This article is a list of castles and fortresses, not a list of Schlosses (to coin a word). According to my Collins German->English dictionary, Schloss in German can translate to Castle, Palace, Mansion or Chateaux in English. The article behind this link makes no attempt to claim Jenny is a castle and, in fact, Jenny Castle is a link to Jenny Estate resulting from a previous editor's mis-translation of Schloss. There isn't a hint of fortification (or even mock-fortification) in the article. So it simply doesn't belong in the list, and all we are doing is misleading readers by leaving it there. It isn't in my opinion, a difficult call.

As for Neuschwanstein, I think that is a red herring. It perhaps calls into question the date criteria in our definition of castle, but that is something you should take up with that article and its authors (of which I'm not one). Either way, Neuschwanstein is a more difficult call; despite its name I think I'd describe it as palace in mock-castle form. But that really doesn't impact the case for Jenny Castle. Perhaps if I'd have thought of it, I would have used a different change comment, but I would still have removed the entry.

I'd also note that the 'cite needed' that you put back has been there for well over a year, which does rather suggest nobody is going to provide a cite for this place being a castle. So, on the whole, I've decided to re-revert. If you feel the need to re-re-revert, I'd ask you to please find that cite and quote it when you do so. Thanks. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at House of Dlamini shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Derek Andrews (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you and Jaqeli have been disputing the proper way to achieve NPOV on several articles relating to living descendants of the last king of Georgia. I have warned Jaqeli against engaging in an edit war, and I am going to give you the same warning. Edit warring is not an acceptable way of handling a content dispute, even if you are convinced you are right and other people are wrong. If you and Jaqeli cannot agree on a way to present "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" on this topic (as required by WP:NPOV), then you need to seek outside assistance in accordance with Wikipedia's established dispute resolution procedures. If you continue to engage in edit wars, you risk being topic-banned or blocked from editing entirely. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your intent, I suspect that you know that User:Jaqeli appealed to you to block my edits because his only other option was to revert my edits again in defiance of User:Elockid's request that he desist from reverting more than once on any page, given his long history of edit-warring, the resulting blocks and mounting, recent complaints that he has resumed that pattern of editing English Wikipedia. Your contention that this is a "content dispute" and therefore both parties are equally wrong I must dissent from: He makes no bones about strongly favoring one pretender (Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky) over another (David Bagration of Mukhrani) in the rivalry over potential restoration of the monarchy in Georgia. I have consistently edited to restore neutrality to the related Bagrationi dynasty articles pursuant to multiple, English-language, independent, reliable sources that I enumerated in detail at Jaqeli's demand here (bottom of section), to which he replied "Those news agencies know nothing about Bagrations and know totally nothing about the genealogy and the history of Bagrations. I've presented the source of the historians and scientists who are doctors and professors in their field and all of them sign the memorandum of all Georgian Bagrations that the royal head of the dynasty is Prince Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky. No one, NO ONE supports self-proclaimed David of Mukhrani. And all Georgian Bagrations, agaian I repeat ALL GEORGIAN BAGRATIONS recognize Prince Nugzar as the head of all 3 Georgian branches." The notion that until someone else comes along to protect Wikipedia's neutrality on articles from a notoriously opinionated and combative contributor is unfair and I ask that you read and consider the specifics of the dispute so that you can give him the advice he needs to understand the NPOV policy and why it cannot be allowed to be defied because he believes, as he has asserted, that as a Georgian, he knows what "the truth" is and is free to disregard reliable sources. You know that it is not true that in every content dispute, both sides are equally wrong with respect to the fundamental charge of contributors: improving the encyclopedia. Please be fair. FactStraight (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say (or didn't mean to suggest) that you are both wrong. I said that edit warring is not the way to handle the problem. That applies even if one side really is right. (I'm not going to say here, BTW, if I believe one side is right, or which side it is — my opinion doesn't matter, what matters is what the reliable sources say.) — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that I have brought up this issue on the administrators' incidents noticeboard page (WP:ANI), in order to get input from more admins. I have taken this step because, in my opinion, my past dealings with Jaqeli and my past edits on various Georgia-related pages preclude me from taking any administrative action here myself (see the WP:INVOLVED policy). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments by another admin have already brought this to your attention, but you've been reported for edit warring. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jaqeli and User:FactStraight. You may wish to respond there, because a report at ANI could lead to blocks of one or both parties. Your best plan is to agree to stop making any Bagrationi-related edits until consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit Wikipedia over the last several days and therefore did not have time to respond to this charge before it was auto-archived here. Do I need to re-initiate it? How? FactStraight (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an observer, I advise not reopening the AN/I right now. There's no point, it's in the AN/I ether now. Instead, create a centralised discussion for the Georgian Royal House issues, and follow the steps of WP:DR. If you feel you and Jaqeli can't come to an agreement, try the dispute resolution noticeboard. If it's possible, pushing for a larger discussion is the most effective way of dealing with edit warring, and more importantly, allows you to push for a resolution on the issue without fighting it out yourself. Regards, CMD (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: Do you really think this issue would be appropriate for a centralized discussion? My understanding has been that ordinary content disputes are generally not considered to have a wide enough impact on Wikipedia to merit the centralized discussion mechanism (see WP:CENTNOT). Perhaps the talk page for the "Royalty and Nobility" wikiproject (WT:ROYALTY) might be a better place to go at this point. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RichWales, I apologise, I was not clear. I meant centralised with regards to the Bagrotoni dynasty articles, so it is just on one page rather than an edit war over multiple articles. I forget my wikilingo sometimes. WT:ROYALTY may be a good place to have this discussion. CMD (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've posted at WT:ROYALTY, in hopes of getting some outside input. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlayCuz. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry about this. I thought it best to clear up the accusation made at Talk:House of Dlamini one way or the other. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of PlayCuz (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here. ~~~~)) below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FactStraight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I maintained separate accounts, not sock puppets, for 2 different types of articles I've edited on Wikipedia, as readily confirmed by the edit histories of the two accounts. House of Dlamini was the exception: it happened to be on both article types (Africa-related and royalty-related articles), and one overlap edit occurred accidentally between the two accounts in August 2013 -- but for which I cannot provide a diff because that crucial evidence has been redacted by my accuser. As soon as I realized the error, I resumed the status quo ante in which the two accounts do not edit the same articles. So although House of Dlamini content has been reverted for years over a disputed copyvio which dates back to 2007, yet it has only been edited once, nearly six months ago, by both PlayCuz and FactStraight, and not again ever since -- and it is obvious from examination that this was done unintentionally -- no advantage whatsoever was taken of it during the discussions and edits on the article. There is, then, no pattern of ongoing abuse here, in fact, the reverse is clearly the case (even the accuser acknowledged that sockpuppetry never became a matter of dispute in the article's history, and that it had been mentioned only in "passing" by the other edit-warrior): Neither party pressed the point of the other's using different accounts to challenge each other's rationales on article edits, because it is the rationale (enforceable copyvio), not the incidental means, which has been and remains the point of relevant dispute, despite the present diversion. After the recent edit war (in which both I and Royalty2012 mentioned that the other had posted from additional accounts, although Royalty2012's accusation against me was followed up -- leading here -- whereas mine wasn't), one error in six years committed nearly half-a-year ago does not an ongoing "pattern of sockpuppetry" make worthy of a permanent ban, especially not in light of my history of years of productive and compliant editing, before and since. Doing so contravenes no punitive blocks & no outdated blocks since there's no evidence suggesting future misbehavior. In any event, as can readily be seen, PlayCuz is a seldom-used account, although created earlier, than is FactStraight which is used to edit almost daily, so why would FactStraight be indefinitely blocked instead of PlayCuz, the latter being an old account I have no problem refraining from any future use of? FactStraight (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

• RevDel'ed or deleted revisions on House of Dlamini show no evidence of any edits by either account around August 2013. In fact, the only edits between March and November 2013 are entirely unrelated. (Unless some edits were oversighted but that's normally never the case for copyvios). In fact, reviewing the history: PlayCuz editws infrequently up to July 17th, 2009. Your next edit came on November 18th, 2010 under FactStraight. You went back to editing with PlayCuz on June 19th, 2011, then back to FactStraight from April 25th, 2012 through to May 2012, until this January when you edited and edit-warred first under PlayCuz, then FactStraight. While the back-and-forth was quite distant in time, it directly contradicts your assertion that there was one accidental mistake last year and casts doubts on your ability and justification for using two accounts. The simplest course of action now is to stick to using a single account for all your editing once your block expires. If it is simpler for you, I have no objections to, once the other block is expired, indef PlayCuz and unblock FactStraight (because I think you should have a right to choose which of the two accounts you'd prefer to continue using.) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Copied from User talk:Salvidrim!)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

FactStraight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please re-activate my User:FactStraight account and its history, as discussed since that has always been my primary and heavily used account, as the user histories of both accounts document. The fact that PlayCuz is older is far less important than the fact that it has never been heavily used, whereas until recently, FactStraight was used daily. If this can only be done by blocking the PlayCuz account, that is acceptable. Thank you. PlayCuz (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

As I initially proposed, I have no objections to this. Unblocking User:FactStraight as the master account and indefinitely blocking User:PlayCuz as a confirmed sockpuppet account. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you've made a couple of edits to the Royal intermarriage article. I've listed it for peer review (here) but haven't had any responses yet. It would be great if you could give some feedback if you have the time. I've spent a few hours trying to make the article less Eurocentric and improving the citations, so any notes would be a great help :) Thanks. Sotakeit (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if 68.109.175.166 is a sockpuppet of User:Jaqeli? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was suspecting the same thing. That anon came out of nowhere, yet is clearly an experienced editor, is as impatient as Jaqeli and makes the same arguments as Jaqeli using some of the same phrases. FactStraight (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty of Kartli.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually hilarious to see how this editor and User:Olivia Winfield edit. I have really strong suspicions it is User:Jaqeli covering his tracks. He even vote oppose on the request move on Princess Leonida so to make it seem unlike him yet let a little of Jaqeli slipped when he said "be it noble or royal is another discussion". Now he is talking to himself with this User:Olivia Winfield account. These are only suspicions. It would be more suspicious if he is reading this right now. I have no intention to pursue them but just wanted to tell you; it may help you handle him in the future. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I did was actually correct. It is for that reason the Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon became H.R.H The Duchess of York on her wedding day.

stevie1972 82.132.212.31 (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FactStraight reported by User:Remus Octavian Mocanu (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact that there is no royal decree gazetted prior to a royal member's wedding excludes de jure (Art 85 alinea 2) the married member of the succession. Only the use of the heavy procedure in alinea 3 of Article 85 can restore the lost position. There hasn't just been yet any official enectement because Belgium undergoes the formation of a new government since last elections in May 2014. Things are just suspended on that fact but the conclusion is evident. — Mimich (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I am familiar with Article 85. Of course, as you know, Wikipedia may not itself apply Article 85 to Amedeo's marriage. We need reliable sources (preferably taken from the Belgian government's or Royal Family's website) to state that this is what has happened to Amedeo -- we cannot treat the consequences of Article 85 as automatic or as "evident". FactStraight (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I was writing about "unofficial consideration" in the meanwhile. Never mind. It will come, I guess, with the new government. -Mimich (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a sockpuppet investigation of Zumbala based on their edits to List of current pretenders. Edward321 (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have changed the german denomination of Prince Koháry, but its correct form is Fürst von Koháry, and not as in many sources (printed and online) Fürst Koháry, Fürst Koháry de Csábrág et Szitnya, etc. To access an official document here is on page 134 of the baptismal records at Vienna Cathedral<sup>[1]</sup>. The God-parents of Prince Ferdinand, later king of Portugal, are his maternal grand-parents Furst v. Kohary and Furstin v. Kohary. The document granting the princely title to Graf Koháry de Csábrág et Szitnya states the same (it is not yet accessible online). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suebeque (talk • contribs) 08:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Factstraight. About her title Duchess of Parma, that is a title in pretense that is not recognized anymore. The Duchy of Parma was abolished in 1861. The book you mention: Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, may call her that but we are dealing with titles that should be recognized in the country of which she is still a royal Princess. That country (the Netherlands) calls her son who holds the title "Duke of Parma" in pretense now, only Prince de Bourbon de Parme (or Prince of Bourbon-Parma). His title of Duke has never been accepted in the Netherlands. Nor was her mothers title of Duchess. Even the dynastic titled of the children (that are mentioned in the article and bestowed upon them by their father who pretended to be the Duke of Parma) are somewhat problematic. Let alone the pretenses these people have for the Carlist succession to the Spanish throne and the false titles that go with that. Heirs to thrones that do not exist anymore (like Parma's) are not considered to be title holders of the monarchical title anymore. Whatever the "Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels" may say! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to leave me this comment. I have responded on the talk page of the article under discussion here. FactStraight (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed a few of your reverts of my edits on British succession citing the Royal Marriages Act 1772. I'm not disagreeing with you, I've just going with the long list that used to be at Line of succession to the British throne, which I've maintained at User:JamesyWamesy/Line of succession to the British throne (please do not edit my user page as the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 will soon trump this anyway). I am just wondering if you had a list (besides the one at Royal Marriages Act 1772) of who has and hasn't received Royal Consent. If we go by the Wikipedia page, then George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews' daughter, Lady Amelia Windsor, and Marina Ogilvy Mowatt's children, Christian and Zenouska are not in succession, despite the Line of succession to the British throne and most other websites you look at saying so. Just wanted to hear your input. Thanks. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the inquiry. I deeply regret and fought deletion of that British succession list since I felt that it was likely to be of interest to many who consult an encyclopedia about the Commonwealth Realms, and might have been salvaged by inserting appropriate caveats and building a consensus on acceptably reliable resources (such as those deemed to have reliably published such information previously, e.g. Burke's Peerage, Debrett's Peerage, William Addams Reitwiesner, etc.). I wasn't even aware that such a list existed at Royal Marriages Act 1772, but reviewing it suggests that it is mostly accurate but can and should be checked as needed. I see at least one omission: that of the marriage of Ernst August, Prince of Hanover to Princess Caroline of Monaco in 1999. I obtained a copy of the Queen's Assent thereto by writing directly to the Privy Council Office. Thus, I would not rely upon any list which does not provide the date that the marriage was approved by Order-in-Council. Verifying non-Catholicity (of dynasts, spouses and children) is more time-consuming, but I believe that weddings and confirmations are available through RC parishes, if not dioceses. FactStraight (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FactStraight,

I recently added the link to a web site (eurulers.altervista.org/ Titles of European hereditary rulers]) that I consider relevant to the Royal and noble ranks page. The site backs up its information with proper references to the printed books. Please do not remove the addition without any discussion.

Best regards, Bibliographe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibliographe (talk • contribs) 13:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princess_Marina_of_Greece_and_Denmark&oldid=prev&diff=648322927 - <sup>the</sup>WOLFchild 14:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The form "princely" is used adjectively in referring to both males and females in standard English. Marina did not revert in widowhood to use of her own "princely title", which was "Princess of Greece and Denmark", but to her own "princely prefix", a privilege normally reserved to those born royal (as distinct from women who married royalty but were born as nobles or commoners, in which case the princely title, if used, is a suffix -- Lady Alice Montague-Douglas-Scott being the sole exception in the British Royal Family). FactStraight (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You successfully defended his ignorance. Who are you to make such judgments? And who are you to judge others? Maybe you want to rewrite history? You successfully defended his ignorance. You remove a part of the article - this is vandalism.

Hello! Where did you get your education? The scientists usually work in the research labs or the academic institutions, with the researches, the research papers and the articles. Who are you? Ginessman (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Factstraight: thanks for getting in touch & I see you're somewhat of an aficionado regarding noble and royal titles. Could you perhaps tell me why the article about Alexander Ulster (heir apparent to the dukedom of Gloucester) was deleted from German Wikipedia? Look forward to hearing & to further co-operation - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No? M Mabelina (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it has to be said, your reluctance to respond and your predilection with editing leave me bemused. Why did you say "No"! to something which was perfectly correct regarding Adrien de Laval? If you know anything about history and European nobility perhaps you would be so kind as to reply: YES/NO (as appropriate). Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FactStraight. Sorry for posting as an IP, but I had to stop editing en.wikipedia because of personal, off-wiki, matters. Hope you'll understand. I'm contacting you because I've just seen you've been dealing with this user. Well, he's not a reincarnation of LPC (whoever he is) but he is certainly someone of his ilk: a perpetual, nobility-obsessed sock scattering all kinds of unreferenced drivel all over wiki. He got indeffed at es.wiki for making deficient translations from this Wikipedia, inserting false references, edit warring, copyvios, removing maintenance templates, etc, etc. After a three-month interlude (because his IP was blocked, presumably), he came back to es.wiki a couple of days ago as [16]. The SPI I filed yesterday revealed that Mannyfabulous was a sleeper.

An SPI was open here, but it was eventually declined, despite the fact that his contributions weren't up to par: he would simply "create" an article by copypasting from existing ones<sup>1</sup> or from the web) <sup>2</sup> or move pages about for no reason whatsoever. Well-meaning as he might be, he's harmful to the project, both here and on es.wiki. As I see it, it's a case of WP:COMPETENCE, even more so here because his English is just awful (he can't tell the difference between his and her). There's no stopping what can't be stopped, he'll be back all the time, but it'd be great if you could keep an eye on him and perhaps reopen the SPI. Best, --181.167.119.104 (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<sup>1</sup>Typical MO: At least one sentence in Infante Fernando of Bourbon and Braganza is from Juan, Count of Montizón: "He was raised in an atmosphere imbued with traditional values of loyalty to the monarchy and the Church". The rest looks machine-translated. He'd done the same as Mickey9992 here ("dethroned due to the fact that he was severely (mentally and physically) disabled" lifted from Archduke Joseph Franz of Austria) and as JannikPetersen in Ronan Carter, with much of the text copied from Mam (film).

<sup>2</sup> MegaWiz1000 is another sock.

PS, In case you're wondering, I became acquainted with LPC through Mannyfabulous' master – he translated many of LPC's articles at es.Wikipedia, may of which got deleted as irrelevant and unreferenced pseudohoaxes ([17], [18])

PSS, I'm going to thank you for an edit so that you know who I am. Apologies again for posting anonymously.

Please take care not to add ((stub)) to an article like Philippa of Coimbra which already has a specific stub tag - it just wastes the time of other editors. Please also remember that stub tags go at the top, not the bottom, of articles - see WP:ORDER. Thanks. PamD 18:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Factstraight: thanks for getting in touch & I see you're somewhat of an aficionado regarding noble and royal titles. Could you perhaps tell me why the article about Alexander Ulster (heir apparent to the dukedom of Gloucester) was deleted from German Wikipedia? Look forward to hearing & to further co-operation - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No? M Mabelina (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it has to be said, your reluctance to respond and your predilection with editing leave me bemused. Why did you say "No"! to something which was perfectly correct regarding Adrien de Laval? If you know anything about history and European nobility perhaps you would be so kind as to reply: YES/NO (as appropriate). Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused why, on two edit summaries explaining your actions on the Duc de Laval article, you asked me about the unrelated handling of Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster on a German Wikipedia article that I have never edited? So, after your third inquiry on that matter, trying to be polite, I sought to tell you -- as briefly as possible since the matter was off-topic -- that I had no comment on that article. On the Laval article, you made edits for which I neither understand the reasoning nor saw the result as an improvement -- and which you had not addressed in your edit summaries. Please, why do you ask me to explain my response, without first explaining your edits? Nonetheless, I'll willingly share my rationale: when a continental nobleman is referred to by name absent a title, it is prevalent usage to refer to him with the untranslated nobiliary particle which, with his territorial designation, constitute his surname. I have heard no reason to deviate from that norm. FactStraight (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there FactStraight: thank you so much for your response & I agree with you. Let me just explain why I deleted the nobiliary particle from Adrien de Laval: when he was fleeing from Paris during the chaos caused by the French Revolution he dropped the nobiliary particle (in a possibly somewhat vacuous attempt to hide his identity) - how to convey his name when fleeing France? And if not to bother, no worries. Ref Alexander Ulster, I note that you express much interest in German noble matters & German Wiki is pretty good at keeping up to speed with British titles too, so my query was simply why the article pertaining to a UK dukedom was deleted (unless perhaps its significance wasn't appreciated)? Thanks again & looking forward to hearing. M Mabelina (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are trying to say is that it needs to say "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" and "Anne, Princess Royal" because without the first names, you think it sounds like all Princess Royals take precedence before all Duchesses of Cornwalls from now on. I think that's what you're saying. If so, that just isn't true. It would need to specifically say that to be the case. Like, "All princesses of the blood go before prince's wives from now on" and it just doesn't. Stating "THE Duchess of Cornwall" and "THE Princess Royal" means "the current holder of the title." Always. Using "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" is a title for a divorced member of the royal family. Camilla is not divorced. At least not from Charles anyways. As for Anne... the Queen, parliament, news agencies, etc... would never call her "Anne, Princess Royal" she's just "the Princess Royal" in the same way that the Queen is just "The Queen" not "Elizabeth, Queen." Cebr1979 (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to leave me this comment. I have responded on the talk page of the article under discussion here. FactStraight (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this decision, since the person making the request mentioned your name. Thanks,EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you very much for reverting the edits from Georgian monarchs articles. Have a nice day. --Daduxing (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is there any way to stop not logged in users to edit this article? Edits made by 109.91.37.71 are like playing cat and mouse there. Actually many of his/her edits are questionable. --Beschu (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FactStraight, You might be interested in what is going on on the page Esperanza de Saráchaga. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found three entries for Esperanza in the Gothaische Genealogische Taschenbuch. All with no born title. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now my Mexican friend (in yet another IP disguise), comes up with this [19] a reference in a Russian genealogical work by Peter Dolgorukov. Not sure what to think about this. The link only gives access to the index of this work, but it mentions the mother in association with a "Baron Sarachaga". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested on the talkpage that if the Gotha doesn’t regard the native status of the family as equivalent to baronial, it really doesn’t matter that some other work does, since we have to go with the stronger source. Citing what you earlier said about the authoritative status of the Gotha. I might also suggest mentioning that discrepancy in the article. Any talk of an elevation of Jorge by the Russian Emperor is, as things stand now, speculative. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on something funny the other day in the article about Israeli fashion. It says: "The attendance of Israeli Fashion weeks is growing and the event has been supported and attended by such people as Ms. Sheila Pierce Ortona of Italian Vogue and Stephanie, Princess de Sarachaga". Who would have thought that..... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised. Clearly some Basque or Mexican culturists believe that this family is of princely rank and fortune -- although it appears to be a legend, I am curious to know when it began, and whether all of the titles that were given in Spera's article were made up by a Wikipedia vandal or were of older origin. FactStraight (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in all of this I got the impression that these people have been peacocking with shady titles since Napoleon lost the battle at Waterloo. I do believe they built some kind of family myth around their heritage and, judging from the removed passages in the article, made some rationalisations about how some of this is all true and well. That’s why they feel the adoptions are so important. I found out that males that are adopted by Russian nobles, could request to be granted nobility when they were 21 years old. They must have realised this too and perhaps thought that the Lobanov Princely rank devolved upon them. Alexis was adopted by the Lobanovs and their ancestor was an orphan in the custody of Alexis and his sister etcetera. The only thing that might have happened is that Alexis was made a baron Sarachagov (really not sure if that is true either), that name being a portmanteau of Sarachaga and Lobanov. He went on calling himself Baron de Sarachaga however. I noticed a while ago that a person working for a US company had been looking at my LinkedIn account. (I have my real name in the signature on Wiki). This caught my curiosity and it turned out that this company is owned by the lady who frequents the Israeli fashion show and her husband. They were previously mentioned in the article as having inherited all these titles. She took the name Sarachaga from her mother’s side apparently. Not that I’m in any way upset about people looking at my LinkedIn, but it does show that this family has followed what happened to the article in the past months. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Creepy. And yet I'm not surprised. The detail with which they have larded the Sarachaga name (did you notice that in one of the fantasy edits Spera did not just shake her bumpershoot at the Bavarian troops but blandished some ancient, Basque ceremonial cane to hold them at bay?) suggests that someone is being paid in cash or career advancement to promote the family. Their complete failure to condemn the perpetrators when we exposed them made it clear that they knew the titles and tales were fake and could not be defended. Now they fight ferociously to prove that Spera was a mere baroness by birth -- and ignore the article's previous claims that she and all her family were once-upon-a-time ruling princes: without the article in English Wikipedia, the Sarachags are too minor for entrée into the international jet-set, despite whatever money they have. If only they had been content with Spera's genuinely spunky moment in Bavarian history and a Russian princess as a remote ancestress (I still suspect elopement, given GHdA's omission of the name and any details on Spera's father). What is ominous is that I have noticed a growing number of similar entries on English Wikipedia of obscure branches or completely fake families who are building genealogies, military awards and phony titles, attached to bona fide Wikipedia articles or, increasingly, created as stand-alone articles. I don't have the time or interest to denounce all of them. Luckily, their own tendency to bald exaggeration exposes most of them to anyone who knows how the international titled aristocracy has evolved. Watch your back! FactStraight (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not too worried about my back, but I’ll be watching it as always. The person who was looking at my LinkedIn turns out to be the PA of the husband. She is also the person who volunteered all the data about Princes and Princesses de Sarachaga to the Euskatel site that used to be mentioned in the article. These data were just copied there mentioning the name of the person involved. The text there mentions the adoption by the Lobanov grandparents. Did you notice that the second adoption by Spera of these orphaned cousins of her was an adoption by Friedrich and Spera first and a wardship by Spera and Alexis later in the article’s history? Telling perhaps. The person involved used to manage a website called casadesarachaga. That’s gone now. Amazing what you can find out on google I think you’re right about employees efforts to promote the standing of the family. At any rate it was clear all along that there were considerable interests involved with these people having titles and that being mentioned in Wikipedia. I’ve noticed that the direct ancestors of these people appear on all kinds of websites where you can open an account to add your genealogy, with the most fantastic titles. Sometimes Baron but mostly Marquess, Prince and Count. I’m also curious if the titles mentioned in the earlier article even existed. I suspect they’re just ancestral surnames with made up titles attached to them though. You still suspect an elopement where Jorge and Ekaterina are involved. That could be right but there is something else. In one of the sources I found and added, it is suggested that Jorge and his brother are not the children of their alleged father. Maria-Micaela, the grandmother, left Spain with this General von Lasollaye and her children, leaving her husband behind. In the correspondence between the Grand Duke and Von Lasollaye it was openly suggested that the children, although named “de Sarachaga-Uria” were in fact his! Hence the made up stories about the “father” being either killed in a duel or in the peninsular war. The stories could not both be true, especially since the father only died in 1825. I stopped short of putting that in the article however. I was also quite surprised by the latest reaction of the IP editor from Mexico. Frankly I had expected loud protests at my most recent edits. Nothing of the sort happened however and I still wonder why. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My points with regard to recent changes to this page. Unsure how to post in TALK for the three of us to discuss.

The Hello Magazine reference has been on this page for 2 1/2 years (until CDRL102 decided to remove as not relevant). The recent interview in Harper's Bazaar is also relevant because it is referenced as her "First Interview", and that it was conducted from the Palace in the Principality of Monaco. It establishes (historically) the relationship between father and daughter and extended family (despite repeated labels of illegitimacy, which should only referenced with regard to Heir). For the first time a legitimate publication was granted an interview (obviously approved by the Principality since took place at the Palace) that sets the record straight about the historical time-line and relationship between Prince Albert II and his two older children. Many publications have also recently published photos of her with family members, such as; Princess Stephanie's children, also establishing a historical record of the relationship. The article also states she attended the Christening of her recent Brother (true Heir) and sister. It is relevant because so much gossip has painted a different picture of Prince Albert's parental responsibilities -- and his public image is of historical interest.

Also, the recent removal of: In February 2006, the French magazine Voici published photographs of mother and daughter during a visit to Monaco. The Prince has hired the services of Gavin de Becker and Associates. << this has been a part of this page since 2006 and relevant in showing Prince Albert II's commitment to his older children. AbbyLawrence (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was on here for 2 1/2 years until I read the page and felt that it shouldn't be there as I don't see it's relevance or encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't a gossip site. I cited the following for reasons against these paragraphs - "WP:BLP, WP:VER and WP:Relevance" CDRL102 (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I notice that your defense begins with "I read"... "and (I) felt" it shouldn't be there... "I don't see..." No one said Wikipedia was a gossip site, and it certainly is not. However, it is often used and referred to as a reference tool (site) and the details published in these two reputable (not gossip) publications answer historical questions often raised regarding the subjects involved. Unsure, why you feel the need to arbitrarily edit the contents of the page simply because you feel it is not worthy. I suggest they remain because they historically and accurately (because they hold first-person quotes from the subjects involved) answer questions often raised about the subjects. You stated your position, which appears to be nothing more than you arbitrarily don't approve and this is not a worthy "for or against" defense of your position to keep or remove these articles. Clearly, certain topics regarding the subjects of these pages, since so often discussed, make it relevant. It is not speculation. It is not gossip. It is the "spoken words" of the subjects involved. therefore; it IS relevant.AbbyLawrence (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)AbbyLawrence (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DamianPythias999 Why are you posting this here? User:FactStraight can go to Talk:Jazmin Grace Grimaldi for discussion. CDRL102 (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FactStraight, can you, as expert, take a look at Sacred Order of Saint Michael Archangel? This article is based on self-published sources and I have bad feeling about this Order. Thank you--Yopie (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one does not look genuine to me and I have never heard of this "dynasty", but I am not an expert on orders of chivalry. I suggest that you leave a note on Guy Stair Sainty's talk page, requesting that he examine the order's origin, history and legitimacy. FactStraight (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FactStraight- You recently commented in an RfC at Talk:Elizabeth II. Unfortunately, the wording of the RfC when first posted did not properly outline the actual issues in dispute. The opening statement of the RfC has since been revised. If that change leads you do a different conclusion, please alter your remarks at the RfC. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, FactStraight. It really confounds me, how a very tiny group of individuals would really filibuster, to keep Queen of the United Kingdom out of the opening sentence. Nowhere's else but Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your concern at the Rfc. I've shifted back to supporting Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other independent states for the article intro, per convincing arguments from Nick & TFD. However, I'm hesitant to air this at the Rfc & can't explain fully why. Anyways, it's best to just leave things as they are, less I end up in trouble. GoodDay (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree you but please check the code of your edition infobox is not currently available. Regards--Heralder (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fact. Re. this revert, I'm still unclear as to why you're putting it through. The original text said and a hereditary title need not indicate nobility (e.g., baronet), and you've said in your edit summary A baronet does indeed bear a hereditary title without being a member of the nobility. Likewise, French law protects hereditary titles but does not recognize them as indicative of nobility. Aren't those two statements the same? Bromley86 (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two statements are indeed the same thing, and I misunderstood your edit. Please accept my apology for wasting your time with confusion. I will make the correction now. Thanks for discreetly drawing the matter to my attention. FactStraight (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks & NP - my fault for the short revert summary. Bromley86 (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You commented on a dispute resolution noticeboard thread in a section that is normally used by DRN volunteers. If you wish to be a DRN volunteer, please sign up as one, and we welcome volunteers to take part neutrally in resolving content disputes. If you wish to take part in discussion of the issue as an editor, you may add your name to the list of editors and make a statement in the space for statements by parties.

Just to inform you, I have replied your comment on WP:AN.[20] D4iNa4 (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Aerecinski has returned, along with a plethora of meaningless trivia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your precision. I agree with you, but I have one question: why can Emanuele Filberto be referred to as Prince of Venice and Piedmont and his wife cannot? Someone should edit the Prince's page (and page's title) and delete "and Piedmont", as he is not know as Prince of Piedmont by most.

Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark was sometimes called "Princess Alice" because she was a princess by birth. Her father, Prince Louis of Battenberg, as many other heads of families with German background, relinquished his title and was later created Marquess of Milford Haven, but in the Continent was known as "Prince Louis of Battenberg" until his death.

I am impressed by your knowledge of some specific facts about European Royalty which I think are known by 0,001% of world's population. I wrote the paragraph about Princess Alice to point out her native status, not to be arrogant. I am sure you already knew everything I typed.

Thank you for your help and keep going. Alistair Wettin (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See user:LouisPhilippeCharlesNew -- PBS (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FactStraight. Are you sure there is such a thing as "the" Archduke or Archduchess of Austria-Este? More people have that title, but are the most senior couple of the bunch entitled to a definite article? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I object to English Wikipedia's use of "The" (or "the") to refer to anyone but a reigning monarch and the monarch's consort (as no doubt you've noticed in past discussion on use of "The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales", etc). But because it is accorded (by custom, not in law) to all British royalty with substantive titles, all peers and the children of dukes, marquesses and earls at the Court of St. James's, that practice has been extended by nearly all of Wikipedia's editors to continental royalty and titled nobles. The problem with Austria-Este is somewhat akin to that of Bourbon-Parma (in the Netherlands): it's recognized titulature in an extant monarchy deviates from the rules which governed it when created by an extinct fount of honour. "Austria-Este" is part of both a title and a name. Burke's Royal Families of the World, vol. I, says "Archduke of Austria-Este" descends by primogeniture to the late Archduke Robert of Austria-Este pursuant to the 1914 and 1917 grants to him by the Emperors. But Belgium's 1991 constitution, in recognizing the 1984 marriage of his son, Lorenz to Princess Astrid of Belgium, refers to Lorenz as Archduke of Austria-Este even though his father was still alive at that time. Yet Belgium accorded Lorenz and his son by Astrid, Amedeo, no legal title between '84 and '91, until Amedeo and his siblings were made princes of Belgium in '91and Lorenz got the same title in '95 -- a title Belgium has recently declared will not descend to Amedeo's (otherwise) dynastic children. Meanwhile, the new, bona fide Almanac de Gotha (the Gothaisches Genealogisches Handbuch of 2015, replacing the defunct Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels' Fürstiche Häuser) attributes "Archduke of Austria-Este" to all of Lorenz's dynastic male-line. Thus the sources don't reflect a consensus and Wikipedia's infobox anonyms seem to be attaching "the" to anyone who is senior by primogeniture and/or who holds a substantive title! So the clearest way to distinguish the head of this branch of Habsburg-Lorraines from other members seems to be use of "the". FactStraight (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to comment on this proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hubertus,_Hereditary_Prince_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha Engleham (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FactStraight. I just saw the copyedit/rewrite you did on August von Senarclens de Grancy and wanted to say what a very nice job I think you've you've done on it. - Nunh-huh 10:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. (Happy new year too I suppose) Alas, I have resisted from doing this for quite a while now, but please, for the love of GOD. GROW UP. My edits to the Duke of Noailles were in FACT useful, unlike yours. I get that you will do ANYTHING IN YOUR POWER to keep me away from here (which says more about you than it does me) but please, grow up. I presume you are not a 12 year old. However you give that impression. Again, blocked or not (mainly due to your stupid actions) those edits were correct. I didn't do anything wrong. Wikipedia is for EVERYONE. NOT JUST YOU.

Were you not blocked a while ago? That is telling. Also if I see you call another anonymous IP address as me (90% of them are not, which is amusing but irritating) then that further shows you need to grow up a tiny bit. I'm a person too. My name is in fact Thomas Harding. Hello.

Yours faithfully the supposedly evil but concise LouisPhilippeCharles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.42.189 (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FOR GODS SAKE. AND the Count of Toulouse. Child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.42.189 (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good faith and perfect argument; alo, the argument has all answers you can need. Notwithstanding, you´re in reason.

Thank you. --Siredejoinville (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Know you how I can linked one reference to several items? which is the code? Thi morning I was looking but I don´t remember o fine how is. I´ll thank your help.

--Siredejoinville (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FactStraight, I want to ask your help for. I am realizing a page named Mariño Family and I´m putting all things in accordance with wikipedia; notwithstanding, from many time there are a group of users attack all my publications, HombreDeHojalata, Maragm, Jdurbo, and so on. This persons transform an ancient discussion in something personal which has been for more than two years old. Please, I am asking for your help because that is a little bored the situation. They pretend I put in this article some they want but that is not true and suitable for. Please, as librarian, you could help me in this?. .... I must to add I am not discussing with any person here, I simply am creating an article. Each time this person want to sabotage my wrotes, they do and that´s no correct.

Thanks for your help.

--Siredejoinville (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FactStraight: thank you for your excellent improvements to the article about Grandees of Spain. Much work is still to be done, so I welcome help such as yours. L'honorable L'honorable 07:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FactStraight, within the power and political role section certain information is presented without a neutral point of view.

1) These words present an editorial bias. 'By being seated and allowed to cast a shared vote on a Count's bench an imperial count obtained, if only officially,'

2) The information about the Imperial Diet and their role is split for no apparent reason potentially confusing the reader, further the way it is presented is odd. The information about countly councils can come after the imperial diet and the power/role an imperial count is fully explained both by the explanation of a lack of an individual seat alongside information directly before or after of their shared seat.

3) The information in this sentence suggests the Diet belonged only to the Princes/Electors; 'immediate counts were...(Virilstimme) in the Diet that belonged to electors and princes.'.

4) Immediate Count is a term that only serves to yet again confuse the reader. The article should not use these terms interchangably and simply stick to 'Imperial Count(s)'. It is worth notingbthis only happens in the 'Power and Political Role' section.

My reason for my edit is that a neutral point of view that must exist. It is a guiding principle of Wikipedia, read about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

If I don't hear back from you within a week I will revert to the edit I made, please refrain from reverting thereafter without discussion or a plausible reason like mine for changing it. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.75.203 (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. And can I just say that you really really need to grow up and get over yourself.

Yes this is indeed your sworn enemy LouisPhilippeCharles. And I noticed that you have made several reverts claiming that an edit YOU Don't like is me. I mean seriously. You're actually pathetic. 9 times out of 10 IF I have edited a page it's actually been a CONSTRUCTIVE EDIT. Unlike you. Why do you even have an account on here? Just to bitch and cause trouble? It certainly seems that way. I've made about 400 articles, at least. But what exactly do you do? I may not know what you look like but I can certainly tell you're juvenile to an almost embarrassing degree.

Regarding the "surnames" of our favourite battleground (The notorious Conti/Orléans/Condé(s) please have an ounce of common sense. I personally uploaded a majority of their signatures. As such X Y Z de Bourbon will suffice. There is and was NO SUCH THING/NAME AS X DE BOURBON-CONTI. That never existed they just happened to be a son/daughter of a Prince of Conti/or Condé. Don't complicate things. As noted above 9 times out of 10 this would be the first place a person comes for info. The least people could do is offer the correct information. Yet bureaucratic morons like you refuse to do so. Less is more.

Evaluation of above.

1. GROW UP.
2. Don't revert everything you see just because YOU DON'T LIKE IT.
3. Grow up.
4. Change your username on here. It's entirely wrong and ironic.
5. Don't shitstir.
6. Less is more.
7. I beg you, grow up.

You may find this article of some interest. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a hoax by some person claiming to be the heir to the Spanish Habsburgs. It has since been deleted. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Son claros sus atentados contra los artículos. Tener un artículo incongruente que se refiera a los Grimldi es conveniente para Uds. tranquilícense, dejen de molestar y busquen algo más productivo qué hacer.

referenciar el artículo es lo que hago, ayudo a darle consistencia a un artículo incongruente. A mi no me importa si el Rey de Rusia se dice Duque de Valentinois, la historia es historia; por el contrario, sus intenciones e intereses cada vez se hacen más claras y patentes.

Cada vez que Uds. lo desean sacan excusas tras excusas, no molesten más, tranquilícense, es pura historia y si mi inglés les parece malo pues ayuden a corregirlo, de lo contrario, por favor, busquen algo más productivo que buscar pelea conmigo, a mi no me interesa ese tipo de cosas. Dejen ya la molestia señores Duques de Valentinois. Por favor no me escriban más mensajes. De antemano les agradezco su buena educación de retirarse del tema. Son Uds. quienes están quedando mal, yo no.

It´s clear about their attacks on articles. Having an incongruous article refers to Grimaldi is convenient for you. Calm down, stop bothering and find something more productive to do.

I just referencing the article, I´m helping to give consistency to an incongruous article. I would not care if the King of Russia said he is Duke of Valentinois, history is history; on the contrary, their intentions and interests increasingly become clearer and patents.

Whenever you want take excuses after excuses, please don´t bother, calm down, it is history and if my English seems bad you can help to correct, otherwise, please seek something more productive than pick a fight with me, I do not want that kind of thing. Dukes of Valentinois leave the hassle. Please do not write me messages. In advance thank you for your good education to withdraw from the topic. You´re remaining bad, me not.

I've been trying to add some English where I could.... In both articles. I haven't looked at content a lot. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FactStraight: POV is the replacing of titles of fantasy and the constant reversions (with deleting) of the Infobox/Pretender box and referenced information in the Miguelist pretenders articles. Their articles are not neutral and have a lot of advertising just to promote their cause and have also a lot of FALSE information. How can it be accepted, can you explain me? Thank you. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now cleary we can see that Gerard von Hebel is playing with our face! He is replacing the fantasy titles as if they were true titles of royalty; he is eliminating all the Infobox/Pretenders in Miguelist pretender articles (and tell that they are real members of royalty in a Republic); he is are reverting all information (mine and now even from Cristiano Tomás) just to promote lies and in a brazenly non-neutral way... and he's trying to accuse me. I ask your help. We can not allow lies in Wikipedia. I'm trying to construct a consensus, but Hebel is trying to destroy all. Jus see his editings and you can prove that I'm right... Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On-going dispute

Please, I ask your participation and your help to resolve an ongoing dispute concerning various aspects of articles pertaining to the Miguelist pretenders and false dukes (Miguel Januário, Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio), also about Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza, and other Royal House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha articles, in an ongoing dispute between editors Cristiano Tomás and Gerard von Hebel against me, here. Those users are combining in their personal discussion pages a way to block me just to silence the truth that I'm being reported. Thank you, Anjo-sozinho (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, leave to erase. Duke of Valentinois was created by Louis XII of France by Royal patents in 1498. If you didn´t, Louis XII was a King of Valois dynasty and the Valois dynasty took its name of Charles Capet younger brother of Philip Capet King of France who is knew as Philip the Beauty. Charles was Count of Valois, his son was Philip of Evreux, Count of Valois; for this reason, This collateral branch of Capet was named Valois but they were Capet just like Bourbon are Capet in origin. Please don´t arise more excuse without foundation just for disturbe or "claim" for Albert of Monaco or Caroline Hanover one thing that is totally different in character at their titles. Believe it, no one is trying to leave at Grimaldis without their titles much more when the Dukedom of Valentinois so like all titles of France and Italy leaved to exist definitely when the Empire of Napoleon II felt and rised the third Republic of France, situation confirmed by Fourth Republic of France instituted by Charles d´Gaul. The last Duke of Valentinois was Albert I because Louis II didn´t carry the title effective. ....Any other interpretation over the Grimaldi´s titles is just that and so is said in this page; consecuently, please leave to search excuses and leave peace this article which is being redacting and improving in best way possible.

Here no one is claiming nothing for Borjas, it´s all of you that is claiming and disturbing for a reason without reason. Please leave to interfere. And and advise, read more about history.

Thanks

--Siredejoinville (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:FactStraight, you might be interested in this RfC. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you revired the Princes of Iceland? King Frederick IX title was Crown Prince of Denmark and Iceland.Mr Hall of England (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Princes was styled Prince of Denmark and Iceland from 1 December 1918 – 17 June 1944:

• First Generation from Christian IX
  • Frederick VIII of Denmark
  • Prince Valdemar is not styled Prince of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI

• Second Generation from Christian IX

Sons of Frederick VIII

• • Christian X is styled King of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI
  • Prince Harald of Denmark is not styled Prince of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI
  • Prince Gustav of Denmark is not styled Prince of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI

Sons of Prince Valdemar (why did they get HRH on 5 February 1904?)

• • Count Aage of Rosenborg
  • Prince Axel is not styled Prince of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI
  • Count Erik of Rosenborg is not styled Prince of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI
  • Count Viggo of Rosenborg is not styled Prince of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI

Third Generation of Christian IX

Grandsons of King Frederick VIII

• • Frederick IX is styled Crown Prince of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI
  • Knud, Hereditary Prince of Denmark is not styled Prince of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI
  • Prince Gorm is not styled Prince of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI
  • Count Oluf of Rosenborg is not styled Prince of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI

Grandsons of Prince Valdemar

• • Prince George Valdemar is not styled Prince of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI
  • Count Flemming Valdemar of Rosenborg is not styled Prince of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI

• Fourth Generation from Christian IX

Great-Grandsons of Frederick VIII

• • Count Ingolf of Rosenborg is not styled Prince of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI
  • Count Christian of Rosenborg is not styled Prince of Denmark and Iceland on WIKI

I have checked the Almanach de Gotha, Genealogische Handbuch des Adel, Burke's Royal Family, Le Petit Gotha and several other sources and I do not find any which indicate that princes of Royal Family of Denmark were attributed a title as princes of Iceland. As I have repeatedly requested in edit summaries on articles where you have added this title: please provide a reliable source for the use of this title. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this discussion. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FactStraight. I have seen what is happening on the talkpages of those articles and I have added my comments basically supporting your view on the matter. I also commented on the talkpage of WP:NCROY as you have also done. Sorry I didn't see this earlier but I think it would be best if policy on matters like this were made on WP:NCROY instead of letting it all depend on ongoings on the individual talkpages of the articles involved. Perhaps an RfC there would be an option? Let me know what you think. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that you commented on this and I agree the discussion belongs at NCRAN. I've been puzzled by the silence on this issue by frequent editors of royalty articles -- especially since it's now on NCRAN's talk page. The move on both queens' articles has been initiated by someone who frequently edits articles from an anti-West, pro-communism perspective (he distracted from the issue with the tangent accusing King Michael of having left Romania for a bribe instead of due to force -- completely non-mainstream). He inaccurately says that most reliable sources don't call her Queen Anne when they do. So the real problem is that most of those posting want to ignore Wikipedia's "most commonly used in reliable sources" to impose their own personal view, based on their belief that a woman who marries a king after he's no longer reigning should not be considered a "queen", and they have decided to use Anne's article to "correct" an error. When it is pointed out that not only is "Queen Anne" most common, but that it is consistent with past usage, they even want to retro-actively correct history! This will be a glaring violation of both guideline and policy after today, when every government, newspaper and TV reference to Anne calls her "Queen" in describing her funeral. Very disappointing. I've never initiated an RfC, so it you know how, yes, please proceed. FactStraight (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I will ask some people I know what they think and I will initiate and RfC. On WP:NCROY, perhaps even on the article talkpages. I've been distracted so I didn't notice this. Please chip in when I do! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I plan to introduce as an RfC on the WP:NCROY page: 'Should this sentence be added to the policy guidelines on WP:NCROY under the heading consorts of sovereigns?'

“The wives of titled royals generally take their husbands titles by courtesy. This generally also goes for the wives of deposed monarchs who married after deposition, as former monarchs are still referred to by their former monarchical titles by courtesy. In cases like this there can also be issues concerning the name commonly used for the person involved. ” Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be a bit more precise. For instance, I thought there is disagreement on whether "the wives of titles royals generally take their husbands titles by courtesy" in the Netherlands and in Belgium (whereas in the UK and other monarchies, it may not be "by courtesy" but by legal right. Also, I'd substitute "former" for "deposed", to cover more situations: "The wives of royalty, current and former, generally share their husbands' titles, unless they use a different name (e.g., professionally or dynastically) or are more widely known in English under a different style." FactStraight (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Good points. I'll adjust the text and let you know. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional information, I agree, it's better like that. Regards. 86.69.180.156 (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention at Duke of Valentionois Page. I have been editing this page with verified reference and you have UNDO my contributions. Please, explain your arguements for this.

My contributions are based in prestigious books worte by historians and schoolars of the theme. In my consideration is necessary complete the page; which, from many years is not complete. Each point of history of Dukedom of Valentinois is very interesting; not just per se, but history bach it. For that reason I ask you moderation and respect. I have investigate so much about theme and in any case is a bad edition of my part.

Thank you overdo.

--Siredejoinville (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, probleme is Prince of Monaco? What has it concern Prince of Monaco with that? Ok. I think you don´t know history. Dukedom of Valentinois given a Cesar Borgia according Royal Pattent, was an inheritance dukedom by male line. The heir of Cesar Borgia are descendants of his brother Giovanni Borgia, Duke of Gandia; now, Rodrigo Borja instituted a Patrimony in front to conserve all Borja lands, titles and so on. In this case, Cesar´s Borgia Dukedom of Valentinois form part of such Patrimony, and is part join to Duke of Romagna, Camerino, Prince of Andria, and so on, titles of Nobility of Holy See or Black nobility. Cesar´s Borgia dukedom of Valentinois has not any relation with Prince of Monaco; perhaps, just the history of lands and evolution of same title but no more.

On the other hand, you pu Albert II as Duke of Valentinois without say that is pretender because last duke of Valentinois in its last creation by Jure Uxoris, was Albert I. That´s historicaly correct. Dukedom of Valentinois claimed by Albert II of Monaco and Caroline of Monaco (she also claimed for her son), doesn´t exist any more because it is of a french title, not Monaco title.

There´s no intention of unstimate any part of the Valentinois history, intention is do history clear. Cansequently, your argument about Prince of Monaco has no any relevance. Albert II or Caroline of Monaco have no any relation with Cesar´s Borgia frenck and papal dukedom of Valentinois; which is part, of "Mayorazgo" of House of Borja instituted by Pope Alexander VI and Joffre Borgia.

Please, how you have no arguments, I ask cordially you, don´t erase my edition, these are perfectly referenced. If you wish best redaction, your wellcome, but whilst you don´t know the history of dukedom of Valentinois and whils you have no argument, please, don´t modify the page without reason.

You are editing the Valentinois article based on your original research: Cesare Borgia left no descendants in the legitimate male line, and after his death the title was re-created for the Monegasque House of Grimaldi, and since that line became extinct the title is borne by the sovereigns of Monaco who, as fons honorum, continue to bear it. FactStraight (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Mr. I just had read your comment about but you are wrong. I can see you are not historian but me yes. In first instance, you are defending the right of Albert of Monaco; consequently, you are talking from part of Princier Family or you are part of that Family; you are damaging my edition by personal opinion. Nevertheless, in front to teach you, I´ll explain you.

1. The title of Duke of Valentinois was created for Cesar Borgia and that is explained aleady. 2. The Duke of Valentinois´s Cesar Borgia is part of Holy See nobility too and actually is so. If nobody Borja use it, it is because nobody Borja wants. 3. The title was re created by Princes of Monaco in male line character and this title come to extinction when Albert I died because "Salic Law", this is a french law of Kingdom of France and because Republic of France can not create or authorize titles. 4. Monaco has never created a new title of Valentinois because it is a French title. Other thing is Albert or Caroline or who wants to Claiming the title, use it; and of course, other thing is people accept this because doesn´t know history. 5. Even Cesar Borgia has no male sons, he had brothers, and in ancient noble law the heirs of a noble (Prince, duke, marquis, count and so on) are preciselly his brothers and his brother´s descendants, it is not a invented thing, it is a question of law in kingdoms; also in actual kingdoms like England, spain, and so on; consequently, heir of Cesar Borgia was his brother Giovanni Borgia Cattanei and his descendants and when all male legitime lines of Giovanni Borgia ending, the line of his only descendant Don Juan de Borja y Matheus (that´s his name according Order of Santiago documents and others), coming in heir, more when Don Jaun de Borja y Matheus was legitimazed by Philip II. 6. Dukedom of Valentinois (because that´s the probleme with your family, the Grimaldis) has no probleme with Grimaldi because Borgia or Borja are different to Grimaldi. One has nothing relation with other. So that you can be easy and telling your extended family "be calm". Here noone is trying to attack Grimaldi family, that would be fool, Is it not true Mr.? 7. House of Borgia was originated historically near of 1270 by one Rodrigo Borja, it was not founded by Callixttus III, that Callisttux III had been the first famous Borja doesn´t mean he had found House of Borja.

So that Mr. don´t worry, if your probleme is the title of Duke of Valentinois, no one is trying to retire or initiate a legal demand or something against your family, the Grimaldi. It has no any base for that, nor legal neither historical. They are so different titles and their character is so different too. Possi″le problemes between Grimaldi for that are not my interest. My interest is totally history, no more no least.

Please, one more, let to disturbe or damage my edition. They have nothing to see with Grimaldi´s, your family and family of many. Thank you. You know? Stupidity is sign of ignorance and fight against ignorace is so tired.

--Siredejoinville (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quintana Achával was Ambassador-in-residence and at-large. There is no sens to specify "Ambassador of Argentina" without any country of residence where he was appointed. And it is excessive in a way to precise IN THE BIO (of Christian Louis de Massy) "... to Austria, Indonesia, Lebanon, Russia, Ivory Coast, Switzerland, Morocco, Lebanon, Kuwait, etc.". That's why I decided to precise this information in a footnote. What I would suggest is a brief footnote drafted like this (without the two others footnotes) : "Enrique Quintana Achával was Ambassador-in-residence to Austria, Indonesia, Lebanon, Russia, Ivory Coast, Switzerland and Morocco, and Ambassador-at-large to Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia." until an English Wikipedia article for this person becomes searchable... 86.69.180.77 (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance on the Legitimist page.

Would you please review the Kingdom of France page and restore some order? I have tried to maintain that the Kingdom of France ended in 1830, and that the French Kingdom is a separate political phenomena as a result of the rejection of Salic Law. My corrections have been repeatedly challenged, likely due to my anonymity. I even relented and tried to divide the "Kingdom of France" into "Ancien regime," "Restored Kingdom," and "French Kingdom," but this too was denied.

It seems we have a collection of "eMonarchists" who are either ignorant or are devoted supporters of Orleanist ideology.

Thank you for all of your thoughtful edits on various articles, and I would like to get your opinion about a matter. From time to time, there have been some editors who have changed Wikipedia article titles about noble families from "House of [name]", such as changing the article about the House of Merode to Merode family (that article title was changed yesterday). Such editors might believe that the term "House of" only applies to royal dynasties, not to noble families. However, my impression has always been that various high-ranking European noble families of ancient lineage, such as the House of Arenberg or the House of Ligne, may properly be referred to as such, and not simply as the Ligne family (that article title was also changed yesterday). You have in-depth knowledge about all things noble and royal, and I have great respect for your opinion, so I would be grateful if you could please let me know your very brief thoughts on this issue. Many thanks for your kind help! -- Blairall (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In putting a comment at the bottom of this page I noticed this one. @FactStraight and Blairall you might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 8#House of -- PBS (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a hello. I saw your note on the Talk Page of Wilshire Park, Los Angeles regarding the Los Angeles Times Mapping L.A. project. I agree with you. (Today I added another source for boundaries for the Koreatown, Los Angeles page.) I also noticed that you had a lengthy discussion over on the Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw, Los Angeles Talk page opposing a merger with the Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles page. Thanks. Your input is wanted. Phatblackmama (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following a trail I ended up looking at Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria and noticed a bloated list of descendants. I have coveted them into a family tree list and collapsed it, but this is subject is outside what I usually do so I have just left the tree with a comment in the edit history "collapsed the ahnentafel. Created a descendent tree from the dozens of listed descendants. IMHO only the children should be listed and any notable descendants. But I am just passing and will leave that to others".

I looked to see who had bloated the list and it seems it was done by 71.99.201.129. Looking at that IP's edits I noticed that you made this edit which was basically a reversal of this edit by 71.99.201.129.

Perhaps you could have a look at Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria and do some pruning if you think it is in order. -- PBS (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think you ought archive some of this talk page. (It is probably easiest to add a bot to do it see help:archive#Automated archival where you can cut and past the bot archiving (just remember to set counter=6 (or startnumber=6)) -- PBS (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You deleted a large portion of other contributors' comments in the "RfC : When to use the term "royal family" in the title". The deletion was entirely inappropriate; such practices are expressly forbidden by the relevant Wikipedia rule ("Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page," as emphasized in the original text). Even if the discussion drifts off the subject (as it did, there), we are never allowed to interfere with other contributors' comments, the only exception being to better format the text or to delete personal insults; such, however, was not the case. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I think you know, that deletion was an unintended error. Thank you for the correction. FactStraight (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a matter of fact, I did not and could not know this. Sincere thanks for letting everyone know it was an error. No harm done, then. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on the Royal Family Designation RfC is much appreciated. I have (perhaps noticeably) been unable to compose concise, knowledgeable counterarguments to my opponents' assertions, and am thankful that your contribution speaks volumes beyond my work. - Conservatrix (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Though our approaches differ, I think you have been quite clear and consistent in your argumentation. I fear, however, that once an editor's adherence to non-mainstream views (e.g. divine right) is acknowledged, some other editors are apt to dismiss that perspective and will hear nothing else that author puts forth. Of course, you always have the right -- and arguably the duty -- to express your views consistent with your beliefs and integrity. FactStraight (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FactStraight: Ha! They undoubtedly see me as Wikipedia's Madame Etiquette.
- Conservatrix (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, here's silly ol' me, taking part in discussions and debates under the impression we're supposed to uphold and adhere to Wikipedia's rules & guidelines!.. And not to promote our royalist, communist, democratic, anarchist, or any other kind of ideology we hold dear, either mainstream or non-mainstream. What you are both saying is, admittedly, quite revelatory.

For what little this is worth, I intend to continue to entertain and welcome any and every other view, but, of course, only as long as it is pertinent to Wikipedia's rules & guidelines; not waste time on personal views on politics, religion, ethnicity, and all the stuff that we are, as editors, explicitly meant to keep out of Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. - Conservatrix (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An always amusing quote but irrelevant. As the old joke went, "you must be working for IBM"! :-) The Gnome (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Quite revelatory"? Of what, pray tell? And is seeking to hang an honest man not enjoined by Wikipedia's guidelines? FactStraight (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For exemplary strength, clarity and eloquence in their argumentation. - Conservatrix (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatrix (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to offer your opinion on the matter of James VI and I's religion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_VI_and_I#Religion
- Conservatrix (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could you please take a look at Talk:Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia‎#Requested move 15 January 2018? Your input would be much appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not know how to change a family tree, please do not touch it!! Stop vandalizing others work; thank you.--Carolus (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tree needs to be trimmed of trivial info and should not confuse surnames with realms. Pleas assist in these corrections. FactStraight (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name of the realm in the late middle ages was not in French. --Carolus (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nor was it in English. Use Flemish or French, but please don't translate surnames into English. Like "earl" vs "count", only a British peer is a "marquess" whereas a Continental noble is a "marquis". Please don't restore ungrammatical and unsyntactical English. FactStraight (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do not know anuthing about the belgian linguistic sensibilitys. Of course one needs to translate, we do this already for hundreds of years. There is not such thing as a Continental noble is a "marquis", who is different from a marquess, you just write non sence.--Carolus (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is about English usage. Native English speakers use the word "marquis". The word is not "translated" to "marquess". Similarly, "count" is not translated to "earl". DrKay (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC has been opened on this page. - Conservatrix (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Something got screwed up here & I don't know how to fix ancestry tables. Cordially, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS I agree about what you intended there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I go through a lot of hard work to improve the data on the Ancestry section of various articles of multiple characters in this Wikipedia, following the standards seen on the best articles made by the best people. Yet, from time to time, you seem pop up from nowhere and mess up what I do entirely, not following any criteria or judgement. I am not in an arguing mood or any proper mood to have debates, discussions, or even conversations today, so you will have your own messy ugly way, I don't care. So don't bother responding me. If you want to do the work, do it properly, don't just mess around because you can, specially if you saw the recent hard work done by someone. I don't speak just for myself, but for many people on this community. Good day to you, hoping our paths won't cross again for a very long time. M. Armando (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not too far from our mutual interest in royalty and nobility is the planter class of the Americas. I published in late June a new planter class article to discuss this now-extinct facet of American society, our "nobility." The page is developing slowly as I am the only substantial editor, so I have come to ask: Would you be willing to perfect what has been established, contribute what you feel is necessary, and posit ideas for future development?

This subject is culturally significant and visitors to the page average 600/month, even in its underdeveloped state. Your beautiful writing will help professionalize my crude attempts at coherent thought. Should you accept, the talk page hosts discussion on development. – Conservatrix (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am flattered by the invitation but must decline. I have neither the background nor interest in the topic to venture thither. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but many of those 94 edits were by banned user:Carolus. I could withdraw the AFD request, which is obviously lost. The older article is much clearer on what it is about. The only reason I haven't withdrawn the request yet is because no version of the article actually provides a reliable source for the substantive–courtesy distinction. (RS which use the term "substantive title" are not enough.) Srnec (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm trying to follow you, but I'm a bit confused: why not edit to improve rather than delete -- since the deletion process explicitly forbids blanking the article's content, and doing so subsequently will look like a rather pointy way of thwarting the outcome? I'd like to see us edit toward covering usage which makes the distinction that we observe to exist between substantive and non-substantive titles. I gather one of your objections is that it doesn't confine itself to the definition of the term with which you are familiar? What, exactly, is that? Yet the other !voters seem to agree that the term is used, makes real distinctions, and has history. One challenge is clarifying what those distinctions are. Carolus cited a Netherlandic source which defines the term in a way that apparently makes sense in Benelux -- but doesn't capture how the term is used in English (e.g., in Benelux a substantive title is apparently not a mere title of nobility, i.e. it is non-hereditary. While true for a category of titles for royalty in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden, that is not always true for the UK, France or Italy, where some titles held by royalty have been hereditary and/or peerages, but others not; some titleholders belong to the class of nobles, others only to royalty; some are legal, some borne by tradition. What I hope we can learn from and avoid is the situation at courtesy title, which treats that term as if it only exists in Britain for Britons -- ignoring that titre de courtoisie has as long, broad and complex a usage as in the UK (the pre-marital title of Prince Henrik of Denmark, for example, can only be understood and examined through knowledge of how courtesy titles work in France). Still, I believe the article is salvageable and would be willing to start from the 2017 version after the !vote, if you'd like? FactStraight (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You misread my edit summary. Your claim that Countess Dorothea Renate von Zinzendorf und Pottendorf had influence over Leopold I's status, career or diplomacy is absurd not the inclusion of some of his ancestry. You also undid my edits to the infobox without explanation, but my edits were determined by wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so I redid them. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You misread my edit summary. But thank you for your comment. I have responded on the talk page of Leopold I of Belgium here. FactStraight (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I've misread your edit summary, then I assume that you agree Countess Dorothea Renate von Zinzendorf und Pottendorf had no influence over his status, career or diplomacy. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I've misread your edit summary, then I assume that you agree that a good faith edit could have deleted Countess Dorothea Renate von Zinzendorf und Pottendorf from the ancestral table rather than John Ernest IV, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, who secured the family seat of Leopold's dynasty? FactStraight (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do, but that doesn't mean that removal of a distant dynasty founder isn't in good faith either. Elizabeth II's article does not list her descent from William the Conqueror, indeed most monarchs' articles do not list descent from the first monarch. These details are placed instead in the articles about the dynasty itself. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with your point that Countess Pottendorf probably had little discernible impact on the amazing trajectory of Leopold I. Yet I admit that stokes my hunger for more background on him -- because the article as written does not adequately reveal what caused the meteoric rise to prominence and power of himself and his family. I do agree, nonetheless, that some factoids can proliferate pointlessly, I'd just rather discuss the cut-off than restrict every article to a default number, when no more than six generations can be shown anyway (far less than the number back from Elizabeth II to Charlemagne). Hopefully, we can find that reasonable "sweet spot" that works for both of us and for other editors. FactStraight (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you start stalking my edits too. I've had enough of that from Flyte. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made to articles on my watch list (nearly all royalty and titled nobility) are brought immediately to my attention, so I respond when I think I have something to contribute. In bios where dynastic ancestry is deleted and I have access to sources confirming the lineage, I consider those helpful edits and have been honest with you about why. Since you know that there are editors beside yourself interested in Ahnentafels, please accept that we may see more value in them than you do and respect the effort to compile and source them so that they are suitable for inclusion. This is, after all, a section that visitors only see if they click open "Ancestry". Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Someone has been removing the alternative style Ma'am from the pages of royalty and imperiality, apparently for pretty much the fun of it, judging by their record of contributions. Check out my recent comment on the talk page of Talk:List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Elizabeth_II and the associated main page history for an example of this type of edit. The editor doing these edits is User:Celia_Homeford. Check out her contributions to see many of these edits, all titled mostly like Every woman in the world can be called 'Ma'am'. This isn't instructive or informative. I respect your opinion on the merit of these recent edits, so thanks for any input or other comments you might make on this. Thanks. --L.Smithfield (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Princess Claude of Orléans, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Couture, Nobile and Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits! I had wondered what the proper style for Hanoverian princesses by marriage was. I saw some of the sources refer to Alessandra de Osma as 'Princess Chrsitian of Hanover' and, as a former royal house of Great Britain and Ireland, I had assumed they took on the British form unlike other continental European royal and noble houses (with of course the exception of Greece). I appreciate your clarification! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The template for the Hanoverian Royal family also lists princesses by marriage under their husbands' names. Should this be changed? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Serge Obolensky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baryatinsky (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am having trouble finding sources that confirm our assertion that the children of Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha were princes and princesses of the United Kingdom. They are included in British prince, British princess, Template:British princes and Template:British princesses but there are no sources explicitly describing them as such. Can you think of a source or should we remove them? Surtsicna (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Documentation of Charles Edward's children's British titles from birth until George V's 1917 edict restricting the princely title to children and children of sons of sovereigns can be found in Burke's Guide to the Royal Family as follows (note omission of "United Kingdom"): "HH Hereditary Prince Johann Leopold Wilhelm Albert Ferdinand Victor of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Saxony, was Prince of Great Britain and Ireland until 1917, b. 2 Aug 1906... HH Prince Dietmar Hubertus Friedrich Wilhelm Philipp of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Saxony, was Prince of Great Britan and Ireland until 1917, Courier Pilot, German AF, b. 24 Aug 1909... HH Princess Sibylla Calma Marie Alice Bathildis Feodora of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duchess of Saxony, was Princess of GB and Ireland until 1917, [Royal Palace, Stockholm, Sweden], b 18 Jan 1908... HH Princess Caroline Mathilde Helene Ludwig Auguste Beatrice of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duchess of Saxony, was Princess of GB and Ireland until 1917, b 22 June 1912..."Montgomery-Massingberd, Hugh (editor). Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, Burke's Peerage, London, 1973, pp. 299-300. ISBN 0-220-66222-3 Excluded, however, from such titulature was the youngest son, "HH Friedrich Josias Carl Eduard Ernst Kyril Harald of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Head of the Ducal House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, [Schloss Greinburg 3, A-4360 Grein an der Donau, Upper Austria], b 29 Nov 1918..."Montgomery-Massingberd, Hugh (editor). Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, Burke's Peerage, London, 1973, p. 300. ISBN 0-220-66222-3 FactStraight (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a brilliant source. No WP:Synthesis concerns at all! I'll add it to the relevant articles. I wonder if there is a reason their titles referred to Great Britain and Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Surtsicna (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In quickly perusing the various letters patent and royal warrants where the titulature of members of the British Royal Family is indicated, usage is inconsistent. Most such decrees omit the suffix. Rather, they almost all use the "prefix" locution:

"...Whereas We are desirous of defining and fixing the style by which Our dear Daughter Her Royal Highness the Princess Louise Victoria Alexandra Dagmar (Duchess of Fife) shall be designated We are pleased to declare that she shall hereafter be styled Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal And Whereas by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the said United Kingdom bearing date the thirtieth day of January one thousand eight hundred and sixty four her late Majesty Queen Victoria were pleased to declare Her Royal Will and Pleasure touching the Style and Title of "Royal Highness" and of defining and limiting the same to be used and enjoyed by the Children of the Sons of any Sovereign of Great Britain and Ireland; And Whereas We are also desirous of defining and fixing the style and title by which the Children of Our said dear Daughter shall be designated : Now We are hereby pleased to declare that the Lady Alexandra Victoria Alberta Edwina Louise Duff and the Lady Maud Alexandra Georgina Bertha Duff daughters of Our said dear Daughter Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal shall at all times hold and enjoy the style title and attribute of Highness prefixed to such respective styles or titles of Honour as may belong to them and further to declare that Our said dear Grand-daughters shall bear the style of Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names and shall take hold and enjoy during the term of their natural lives in all Assemblies or Meetings whatsoever the Precedence and Rank following that is to say immediately after all Members of Our Royal Family enjoying the style of Royal Highness... 9 November 1905 (National Archives, HO 125/5.)". (emphasis mine)

In two rare cases where the suffix is mentioned, they differ slightly, as follows:

Whitehall, February 25, 1919. "The king has been graciously pleased, by Warrant under His Majesty's Sign Manual, to give and grant unto Her Royal Highness Victoria Patricia Helena Elizabeth, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland, His Royal License and Authority that she may immediately on and from the solemnization of her intended marriage with Alexander Robert Maule Ramsay (commonly called the Honourable Alexander Robert Maule Ramsay), Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, Commander in the Royal Navy, relinquish the style of Princess of Great Britain and Ireland. And to command that the said Royal Concession and Declaration be recorded in His Majesty's College of Arms." (London Gazette, issue 31203, Feb. 26, 1919, p. 1.) (emphasis mine)

Whitehall, July 15, 1914."The King has been pleased to declare and ordain that the children born to their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Brunswick and Lüneburg shall at all times hold and enjoy the style and attribute of 'Highness' with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names, or with any titles of honour which may belong to them; and that the designation of the said children shall be a Prince (or Princess) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. And to command that the said Royal concession and declaration be registered in His Majesty's College of Arms." (London Gazette, issue 28850, 17 July 1914, page 14/5552.) (emphasis mine) FactStraight (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the Coburgs were not an exception to the rule because, in reality, there was no rule. That is interesting. Thank you! Do you happen to know if Charles Edward's children lost their British titles when he was stripped of his or later when the letters patent limited them to the monarch's children and grandchildren? Surtsicna (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say that there was no rule. Rather, as is usual with the British monarchy, there is tradition and practice instead of a house law recorded in a decree. The "of DucalSuffix" for children of royal dukes (e.g. Princess Margaret of Connaught or Prince Michael of Kent) is not a matter of law, decree or rule, but of custom. In the case of the royal suffix for princes (which is the legal suffix for cadets of royal dukes as well as for the children of the sovereign) the rule seems to be that they were "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" or "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", but that this long phrase was often truncated even in formal documents to "of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or "of Great Britain", just as it is in ordinary parlance which, until fairly recently, more often than not referred to "the Queen of England", even in writing. As for Charles Edward's children, they failed to ask the British monarch for permission to marry after WWI, even Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, so it is hard to document. But when George VI approved the marriage on 1 August 1951 of the heir to the House of Hanover, the Royal Assent given in the Order-in-Council referred to him as "His Royal Highness Prince Ernest Augustus George William Christian Louis Francis Joseph Nicholas Oscar of Hanover, born Prince of Great Britain, Duke of Brunswick and Luneburg". How's that for straddling the fence? FactStraight (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Augustus was born before the letters patent of 1917 were issued, so they did not exactly shoot themselves in the foot there, did they? Confusing nevertheless. I do find it interesting that they happened to omit Ireland. Anyway, while looking for the confirmation of the British titles for Charles Edward's children, I found this in the Almanach de Gotha. I cannot figure out what "expect. de l'O. de St-Jean" means. Presumably it refers to a Hospitaller order but for what could "expect." stand? Surtsicna (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am also stymied by that abbreviation, don't remember ever seeing it. But the Hanovers weren't immediately affected by George V's 1917 edict because they had received the 1914 LP referred to above which explicitly extended the British princely title another generation, and the 1917 decree left intact "unrevoked" LPs. What's unclear is the extent to which the 1919 decree stripped them of their princely titles. It's usually interpreted as only suspending their peerages, but since the Hanovers and Coburgs also both held German princely titles, it's hard to know if they remained British princes post-1919. And the wording of the 1951 Order-in-Council reeks of deliberate ambiguity. FactStraight (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FactStraight: I'm sure you have better things to do with your day than reverting edits for no apparent reason, other than I have now been flagged up as some sort of deviant. So before I drop this futile quest, could you let me know exactly what is wrong with the info provided to Wiki:

1. Prince Erik was appointed a Knight of the Order of the Elephant in 1908.
2. His marriage was a morganatic one.
3. He didn't have rights in the plural, just the right! in the line of succession to the Danish throne.
4. J.R. Booth's wife's maiden name was spelled Cooke.
5. and Lois' second husband died in 1966.

So why to delete these helpful pieces of information? I don't understand. What seems to me to be the case though is that some people get quite energised over much ado about nothing & then we all have a big argument, fall out & then you pick on someone else! Why not just get Wiki's info - indeed facts - straight....

Best 82.132.221.66 (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt whatsoever that these edits [21][22] are performed by sock puppet IPs of User:Qais13. The IP range, geographical location, topic, and editing style are identical to the sock master and his many puppets. Editing from the same IP range and the same geographical location, you then make an edit at the same obscure article[23]. I therefore deduce that you are a sock puppet. You have been given many opportunities for a clean start or standard offer, and each time you have refused. For a chance to be unblocked, you may return to your original account, and follow the instructions linked. FactStraight (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider it helpful to treat any nation as entitled to prevent the translation of its name. I don't call Burma "Myanmar" and would not call Russia "Rossiya" if they asked me to. Swaziland is no more special than Deutschland, Espana, Suomi, Maghrebia, Misr, Sakartvelo, or any other countries we do not refer to in English by their native-language names. LE (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Swazis changed their nation's name, just as did the governments of the geographical entities formerly known as Burma, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. I quite agree, however, that we should continue referring to Queen Victoria's great-grandson as "The Earl Mountbatten of Burma"! FactStraight (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Union (not referred to in the English language as the Soyuz Sovietskikh though that was its official name in Russian) was dissolved and replaced by constituent nations, as was Yugoslavia. Burma, like Ivory Coast and East Timor, and now Swaziland, brazenly demanded that its native language name replace the English-language name in English, without any actual change in the nation to which the name referred, and that is none of their business. LE (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A topic that you had commented on previously has come up again. Specifically, there is a new discussion here about using an Infobox royalty or nobility for Lady Louise Windsor. If you could possibly provide a comment there, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your help! -- Blairall (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who calls oneself "FactStraight" you seem to be working upon lots of suppositions. I have been looking on the work of Administrators such as DrKay, who deals with a lot of articles concerning royalty and so on, and realising that the sheer excess of info in ahnentafels doesn't attend the purposes of Wikipedia. What is the point of a five generation ahnentafel on a subject other than some sort of weird pedigree fetiche? Take a look at the articles of the new British royal children, Spanish, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian... There is not even a section "Ancestry" because it is getting tiring and obsolete. So I took it upon myself, as others have, to make these sections, as many as I can, into reasonable sized sections, containing four generations: subject, parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, and that is enough. Your "cruzade" is, sorry, ludicrous. No matter how well researched, and it is well researched, post it on Genealogy sites, talk about it on Genealogy forums, not Wikipedia. Respectfully, M. Armando (talk) 20:20 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, FactStraight. I would like to hear your opinion on the creation and enforcement of a standard and definite guideline for the styles of biographical articles of non-reigning royals and pretenders going forward. Please refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9#Non-reigning Royals, Pretenders, Wikipedia Guidelines/Styles, & Consensus for further discussion. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad to see that you have not contributed for almost two years. You have done a lot of good work here. I hope you are doing well and that you will return. Surtsicna (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]