Hi, I don't know if you're still following the peerage move debate, but just to let you know that the debate was closed by User:Nightstallion who single-handedly decided that there was no consensus and the article should not be moved. I have already sent a message to Nightstallion and expressed my disagreement. Please check on his talk page. As it stands now, not only is the peerage article still devoted only to British peerage, but there's not even a link on top of the article linking to peerages in other countries. I think it is a shame for an encylopedia that intends to have a world audience, not just a UK audience. Please express your opinion on the matter if interested. Thanks. Hardouin 15:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:House of Bourbon#French Bourbons: impressive. There might be an article (or two) lurking in your talk-page comments there. - Jmabel | Talk 04:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree. That's the most lucid explanation (i.e., untangling) of the various claims I've seen. This really ought to be worked into an article. (And I don't suppose you're sufficiently knowledgeable to do something similar for the Stewart claimants?) --Michael K. Smith 21:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. But Stewart claimants? I didn't know there were more than one! Besides, that's Noel McFerran's bailiwick.Lethiere 02:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello Lethiere, thank you for your comments, how did you know that I was researching on that topic? Ok, so in this case it is assumed that she was "Prinzessin v. Sachsen", whereas Albert of Saxe-Teschen was "Herzog", is that correct? Are you also familiar with Austrian noble titles such as "Ritter" and "Edler"? I had an interesting debate once with User:Cfvh who said these titles were "qualities" and not full-fledged noble titles. Or how do you see this? Gryffindor 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your information. My head is still smoking from reading it, I still don't quite understand. I mean I understand the whole "baronet" and "Sir" part in the United Kingdom, however I think we are trying to compare things here which are not really comparable, since there does not seem to be an English equivalent of the Austrian "Edler" and "Ritter". I cannot think of any German word that would make a difference between "rank" and "title", or maybe you happen to know it? There is "Hochadel" and "Niederer Adel" (as well as "Uradel", "Reichsadel", etc.) and "Adelstitel", but "rank"....? I think your sentence "..because in several languages often the same word is used for both or they have morphed into one another." probably describes it best, because in German Adel is Adel. You're either part of it, or not. In English differentiations are made but I cannot think of anything in the German language that would describe a differentiation in Austria and parts of Germany. I think I really need to hear the German terms, then I can understand better, but thank you for your help. Gryffindor 22:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi Lethiere, how are you? Remember the discussion we used to have on this topic? I was wondering if we could slowly maybe draw a close, considering this topic has been on and off for over a year (previous discussions). I think we are basically not quite sure if we should have them all in English, in native version, or a mixture of both? Gryffindor 17:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ernest Aug. and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 10:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nunh-huh and Lethiere;

I am posting this on both of your talk pages. I have Albert II, Prince of Monaco on my watchlist and am noticing a lot of reversions occuring, around what I notice to be the use of adulterine. Can this be discussed rather than turn into an editing war of sorts? Adulterine in a dictionary gives a definition as being born of adultery. If Jazmin was born out of adultery, it is factual usage. However, I think its inclusion ought to be discussed on the talk page rather than through edit summaries. Charles 02:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just saw your comment. I'd be interested to hear what, exactly, you're suggesting here. I agree that there's fairly low "buy-in" for the current conventions, as this Polish issue, for instance, has showed. But I'm not sure exactly what throwing out the current guidelines and starting again from scratch would accomplish. Do you have specific proposals to make in terms of changes, or do you just think we should blank and build up again and see what develops? And what makes you think that the guidelines are the problem? It seems to me that the principal problem is that a lot of people don't care about specific guidelines like this. Throwing out the guidelines and writing them again is only going to result in a different set of guidelines that nobody listens to.

I have no particular personal stake in the current business. For instance, if we were designing a monarchical naming guieline from scratch, I might prefer a system where a) monarchs aren't disambiguated pre-emptively; and b) where disambiguation is done by parentheses (rather as in the German wikipedia. Thus George V of the United Kingdom would become George V (United Kingdom). This would have the advantage of not implying false titles, as such articles as Constantine I of Greece, Leopold II of Belgium, and Wilhelm II of Germany currently do. But I don't think this would actually solve any of the problems you point to. No matter what we do, there are going to be people editing individual articles who've had no connection to the naming conventions, and no particular interest in them, and still want to move the page where they want to move it. I don't see as we can do much about this. john k 20:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_prussiakstyles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Charles 17:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template was only used for three kings of Prussia, the last three which were German Emperors. The German Imperial template box has been modified to include the royal titles and this template is not longer needed as no page links to it (and there is a standard template for kings). Charles 17:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that I have jumbled together "nobility" and "royalty" in the guideline. That's what I meant when I said in my first talk post that my choice of words would be poor. It seems, from most of the opinions on the talk page, that the way to go is to make this apply to all nobility, not just the royal family. The actual royal family (as defined in the guideline) doesn't need to meet these additional criteria. I'm going to make some changes in an attempt to fix that. I may go too far, so please feel free to make changes. Kafziel 13:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was pleasantly surprised this morning to read the latest version of Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty). By combining my concerns that notability be defined in terms of kinship with your own preference for a specified place in the order of succession you have come up with a new and better solution than I proposed. There are a couple of minor corrections I'll make, but I think the guideline is now clear, correct and useful. Thank you for taking into consideration the points I raised -- it took me hours to track down those 3 successors who had been 8th in line to the throne. Good work, Kafziel!. Lethiere 17:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lethiere, I wonder if you might take a look at my discussions with Kafziel at Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty). Another head looking at this would, I think, be useful. Thanks. john k 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 04:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lethiere, WikiProject British Royalty wants you! WikiProject British Royalty is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Hi, Lethiere. I'm very sorry about the lack of notification on the article's talk page. I forgot to make a note. My post to the Administrators' Noticeboard was less helpful than I had hoped, as no uninvolved adminstrators commented (if no one responds on the board in about a day, it is unlikely they are going to. also, a lack of response indicates general lack of interest and once it moves higher up on the page, it is much less visible). In practice, move requests are decided by the majority, even if it is slim, since a move is not the same as deletion. That fact, the apparent relevance of #10 at the time, and the fact that names are usually decided by what is the most common usage even when it is technically incorrect led me to move the article. However, even if #10 does not apply, an argument could be made that the name should be Queen Anne of Romania and that is what they majority wanted. Therefore, I do not think a move back would be appropriate at this time.

I suggest making another move request and carefully stating why you think it should be moved, including counter arguments to the ones already used. Try to be as concise as possible while still being persausive and clear. You could add a note to the request asking for the move request to remain open longer to increase participation, perhaps 10 to 14 days. You could also add a notice to the miscellaneous page of the Village Pump about the survey taking place. Make sure that it is neutral, though. If there is a place you know of that would get a lot of attention, you could also post it there. However, you should be careful, as it could be seen as improper if the people who are likely to see the note are significantly more likely to support your position. Talk to you later, Kjkolb 10:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously offended you, although I'm not sure what exactly it was that I said. It seems you thought I was saying that these traditional leaders are the heads of street gangs. I assure you, I wasn't. I was speaking literally. The point was made that these kings have de facto power over large groups of people and are therefore nobility. I contend (as does the rest of the world) that it takes more than that. The leader of, say, the Crips, has no legally recognized authority yet his boundaries stretch across borders and he is obeyed by thousands of people. Same definition. WP:NOBLE doesn't guarantee him an article, because he's not the leader of an internationally recognized sovereign monarchy. I could just have easily used the Somali warlords as an example, or the modern leaders of the American Indian nations, and maybe I should have, but I'm from New York so gangs came to mind first. So if there was a misunderstanding there, I apologize for my poor choice of words. The whole reason I joined the conversation is that I'm offended by the constant accusations of Eurocentrism on Wikipedia, so it certainly wouldn't be my intention to turn around and offend someone else. I'm sorry. Kafziel ^Talk 01:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created a proposal for our Style Guide - HERE - please do discuss it on the talk page // DBD 12:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your comment on the move, but you mentioned Polaran's userpage. Is that correct? --Merbabu 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - forget that comment. I misunderstood. I get it now. :) --Merbabu 14:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually checked all Georgian news websites including that of Imedi TV cited by Itar Tass, but could not find any info on that. I think it is a kind of misinterpretation of Zourabichvili's words. Thanks, --Kober 19:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lethiere, I see that you've done some work on this article. I've changed it around a bit (the family tree still seems a bit garbled to me...), mostly to indicate that Lucien's descendants were not, and never have been, pretenders. You already noted that they never put forward a claim themselves, but I'm unaware of anyone ever putting out a claim on their behalf. The idea that the senior line has some kind of natural claim to the Bonaparte heritage seems patently absurd, and unless we can find some positive citations supporting that anyone other than wikipedia editors has put forward a claim on their behalf, I don't think we should promote the idea, even by denying it. john k 13:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd about Jerome not being in the line of succession during the First Empire. I will trust you and Mr. Velde on that question - if you haven't already removed that addition by me, I'll do so. That being said, "assuming good faith" does not mean that we are to assume that what someone writes is true, merely that they believe it to be true. It may not be our job to remove pretenders based on our judgment of the validity of their claims. But it is certainly our job to remove "pretenders" whom no sources show as having ever actually pretended to any throne. Neither you nor I have read any reliable source that suggests that anyone from Lucien's line ever put forward a claim. It is the responsibility of the person arguing that such a claim exists to provide evidence for it. Maria Pia and Dom Rosario are certainly pretenders in the sense that they've put forward claims. As such, I can see the merit in your argument that it is not for us to summarily exclude them. But I can't see any merit in saying that we should simply trust some anon user who has decided that the Canino Line were and are pretenders, up to and including cognatic descendants. Wikipedia has other content requirements besides NPOV, and one of them is verifiability. In this case, given that neither of us is aware of any claims made by the Canino line, or of any particular claims made on their behalf, it is the responsibility of the person who believes such to provide substantiation. My view is that the article should make no mention at all of potential pretendership claims by the Lucien branch. It shouldn't say that they are not proper pretenders, because it shouldn't mention anything about pretendership at all. Instead, it should explain why, despite being senior to both Louis and Jerome's line, it has never been widely considered either dynastic or in line for the succession of the French throne. Otherwise, the article takes the weird form of an argument against a position that nobody substantial has ever taken. john k 21:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the article (formerly: Line of succession to the Portuguese throne) Pretenders to the kingdom of Portugual ? It should presumably moved to "Miguelist line of succession to the Portuguese throne", or how? Can we allow that inherently problematic present name to any article? Marrtel 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC) - Septentrionalis made a move that NPOVed much of the problem. Marrtel 23:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wondering if you know whether the House of Savoy still carries the title of King of Armenia or not? Along with Jerusalem, Cyprus etc. Thanks.--Eupator 20:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lethiere, we do not use styles in the articles, we just explain them, once (usually, at the person's biography). It is not the task of Wikipedia to endorse anyone's desire to be highness, honourable or whatever, it is our task to explain that some (such as their government) uses/ has granted such style, and then where/how it is used. Therefore, article text must not say "going to Spain, Her Highness met His Excellency...". At certain times, there has been style wars becuse of overabundance of styles in all corners, requiring elimination of all mentions. We do not want the same to repeat. Hope you understand. Shilkanni 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I direct you to actually read the points that already were written in the relevant talkpage Talk:Grand_Duchess_Xenia_Alexandrovna_of_Russia#head_of_the_house when you added your demand for citation to the article text. You apparently did not realize, that it was through his father how Vasili Alexandrovich of Russia, youngest son of Xenia, was regarded (several years, until his own death in 1989) as the heir presumptive of the headship even by the Vladimorovichi. Such things happen when the agnatic lineage is dying out. As it died out in 1992, any dynastic descendant of Xenia, if had survived, would be head now. Shilkanni 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are deliberately trying to keep several POV allegations in the article princess Tatiana Konstantinovna of Russia. Please desist such POV attempts. I remind you that articles need to be written NPOV.

I further warn you that such total reverts you have done, are not allowed. Such destroy work of others rather blindly.

If you continue in the way you have now done, your POV stance probably will be put to dispute resolving process. Shilkanni 00:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, while you are at it, kindly provide citations to support certain of the conclusions you are defending by your reverting. I have marked (most of) them with citation request. Shilkanni 01:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lethiere! I've just started a poll about Category:British royal titles templates, and would really value your input - please do have your say! Cheers, – DBD 13:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Your comments on the AFD for Farahnaz Pahlavi are unusually long. Please try to be more concise in the future. I know you're responding to someone who's leaving longer comments too (I have also asked them to trim their comments...), but even in that case it's much better if you keep your replies short. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 09:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you can't be serious, can you? "Null set" whatever, are you suggesting it would be impossible to find a source stating that primogeniture was not practiced by any monarchy before 1980, if it's true? If you don't have that source, it's just an assumption! And if we use your "null set" argument, apparently any assumption based on a limited amount of data is right, and does not need to be sourced..! Mackan 00:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New move proposal here: Talk:High_Council_of_Sweden#Requested_move_2 —  AjaxSmack  02:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, please comment further on this topic here. ~  AjaxSmack  07:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Just wondering if you could give some advice on a debate on the Catherine of Aragon page regarding the spelling of her name. There is some heated discussion on the discussion page, could you drop by and add your thoughts?? Cheers Paul75 01:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lethiere;

How are you? I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Dauphins. If you could take a look at it, that would be wonderful. Many thanks! Charles 00:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting my edits and read the source text carefully:

"Agnatic: "Pertaining to the reckoning of relationship by male link(s) exclusively, regardless of sex of Ego and/or Alter. An agnate, then, is a person related by patrilineal descent (RK:147)." DT. "In Roman law agnati were kin who traced their relationship by descent through males only from a common ancestor, who were under the authority of a single paterfamilias, and who resided together. Agnati could be adopted. They included women, but no kin linked through a woman." GK:18. Contra. "uterine"."

Basically, what this means is that an agnate is a man or a woman related by patrilineal descent. The sentence I keep editing out from the article; "One's agnate may be male or female, provided that the kinship is calculated patrilineally, i.e., only through males back to a common ancestor" is poorly written. It should say: "An agnate may be male or female, provided that the kinship is calculated patrilineally, i.e., only through males back to a common ancestor". That's in line with the information in the source. However, in the context of the succession model Agnatic primogeniture, it's unneccessary to point this out, since only males can inherit and females are totally excluded. /FrinkMan

You opposed Option 6 on the grounds that your preferred solutions were not included. What are they? I'll see if I can work them in. Jimbo's suggestion that there is no point to merging is included (you !vote against any merger in the first question, and to render WP:ATT inactive in the third.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the format has been decided by force majeure; but your message is not moot. Please reread WP:V; it says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed", which is stronger authorization to delete than WP:ATT, which did caution against doing it uncivilly, and recommended it as a last resort. At least by implication, it suggests that material should not be removed when there is a source which exists but is not cited. I hope we can work together in incorporating these cautions into WP:V. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd say I really liked your contribution to the poll, it captures exactly what I feel many of the problems are. I think it ceased to be about the substance of the actual change quite some time ago. Orderinchaos 12:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at the relevant branch of the naming conventions, where it was left indecisive. This move proposal is a test to see what WP:NCNT should say about such cases; please !vote on that question, not on proceedural issues. If you oppose the move, as such, please say why, and it may well become part of the convention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "maiden name rule" is something on which we have never agreed; even those who regard it as more than a rule of thumb disagree vehemently on its extent.

I think you mistake the role, the possible role, of ((guideline)) pages like WP:NCNT, is the first place. They cannot usefully be prescriptive, especially when editors will disagree on what is to be prescribed.

In this case, there is no agreement on whether maiden name rule applies here. Please answer the question, which is always the fundamental question: What placement of this article is most useful to the encyclopedia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline merely states the facts of our partial agreement and partial disagreement. The maiden name rule is in the guideline because:

• It is a good rule of thumb, often, but not always, the most common English name.
• Some people feel it should be generalized. Others disagree, holding, as the examples should make clear, that it should not be generalized; some think it has been stretched too far all ready.

If you think the maiden name rule is a good idea, and we should use it for this Elisabeth, do please say so; by saying so, you answer my real reason for making this move request. But please don't appeal it as though it were consensus; it isn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with this? User Charles continues to revert, despite your citation re the dynastic acceptability of the marriage of Diane Halfin and Egon von Furstenberg. By his agnatic logic, Egon's parents' marriage would also have been agnatic, given their unequalness, but all sources re the nobility indicate that it was considered dynastic, as was his father's later marriage to Titi Blaffer, an American heiress from Texas.Kitchawan 17:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you will see my response to your vote on this page. Noel S McFerran 00:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on re-adding the sentence "according to some sources"? The available sources clearly states that agnatic primogeniture excludes women from the succession. I can back this with Nordisk familjebok and SOU 1977:5 Kvinnlig tronföljd, (I have access to both). You cant't disprove this by any of your sources. "According to some sources" imply that other sources says that females are NOT excluded from the succession in agnatic primogeniture. No sources imply this, therefore the sentence is incorrect. FrinkMan 16:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is not what the term means in English: "agnatic" is never properly used to exclude females altogether. If I were convinced that the evidence indicated otherwise, I wouldn't make the edit. Whereas, you have insisted all along that "agnatic" excludes females, which is clearly incorrect in English. On March 27, 2007 you asserted this again in the Primogeniture article, and again reverted my edit stating that the source I cited did not confirm that "agnatic" includes females -- when the source plainly stated exactly that. Please cite a source confirming your allegation that "Agnatic primogeniture and pure Salic law is the same thing, according to all sources" -- including all English-language sources.Lethiere 17:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your source: "Agnatic: Pertaining to the reckoning of relationship by male link(s) exclusively, regardless of sex of Ego and/or Alter. An agnate, then, is a person related by patrilineal descent." I agree that an agnate, then, can be male or female, and that the term "agnatic" therefore can refer to both males and females. However "agnatic primogeniture", the succession model, does not include females in the line of succession. This is a sourced statement. This is my crucial point, the succession model agnatic primogeniture excludes females from the succession and is used interchangeable with the term pure Salic law. When I wrote "according to all sources" I meant "according to all sources listed in the article". I repeat, your statement "according to some sources" imply that other sources says that females are NOT excluded from the succession in agnatic primogeniture. Cite a source for this. Think about it, if a statement in Wikipedia is followed by a source, is it common to add the sentence "according to some sources"? FrinkMan 18:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I quoted the cited source in the Edit Summary "Pertaining to the reckoning of relationship by male link(s) exclusively, regardless of sex..." you replied, "Reverted. Read the source again, there's a difference. One's agnate can NOT be female, the point with Agnatic primogeniture is the total exclusion of females", emphasis yours. You clearly linked the meaning of "agnatic" to "agnatic primogeniture" and told me that the quote did not say what it clearly did say. Your statement that my edit was "stupid" shows a lack of respect for interpretations differing from your own in this matter. I'm not making the assertion that "agnatic primogeniture" has one and only one use in English -- you are. Nonetheless, I've provided both specific source & quote on the use of "agnatic" in English. Therefore, please quote a source confirming your allegation that "Agnatic primogeniture and pure Salic law is the same thing, according to all sources" -- including all English-language sources. Lethiere 19:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing the March-edits now. It is odd to add "according to some sources" to an already sourced statement. I obviously can't prove that all sources claims that "Agnatic primogeniture and pure Salic law is the same thing", how could I do that. I have two sources, stated above. You have no sources indicating that agnatic primogeniture includes females. It is you that should add a source to your statement "according to some sources". FrinkMan 19:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am addressing all edits by you, as indicative of your asserted point of view in this article. If you couldn't prove that "all sources" say that "agnatic primogeniture" excludes females, that is an illegitimate revert. My edit, "according to some sources", refers to your assertion in the article as to the universal meaning of "agnatic primogeniture". Since you are making the universal assertion, it is up to you prove its universality. Either the ordinary English use of "agnatic" is applicable here -- which must then include eligibility of females to succeed -- or you are using it as a phrase of specific meaning contrary to the normal meaning of "agnatic" in English. If you have a source that says this is a special term with an exclusive meaning in English that eliminates female successors, please quote it. 19:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have two sources for my statement, Nordisk familjebok and SOU 1977:5, a report by a committee appointed by the Swedish government prior to the adopting of female succession in 1980. These sources states that females are excluded from the succession in agnatic primogeniture. However, I'm nevertheless ending this conflict now. If you insist on re-adding "according to some sources", then fine, it's not the end of the world. This is too exhausting. Goodbye! FrinkMan 19:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please, see my answer to your posting on Radu Duda's talk page. Thank you! Lil' mouse (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, DBD 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, I would your input on two discussions I have initiated at WikiProject Biography/Royalty, one on template standardization and one on name of the WikiProject and redirects to it. Thanks in advance! Charles 04:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lethiere: I noticed a back-and-forth between you and someone claiming to be Carole Radziwill on her "discussion page." Despite "her" claim (and it may not be her at all) that she was born in 1968, Carole DiFalco Radziwill was NOT born in 1968. I went to school with her--we were both born in 1963. Check Lycos public records for Carole DiFalco. It's shows her age as 44--she'll be 45 in August or September, I don't remember exactly when. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onewhoknows001 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know that there's a discussion about the above at the WikiProject, and I'm inviting all of the members to join in DBD 13:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; could you please explain me why the descendants of Antoine, Duke of Montpensier, are not considered dynasts of the Line of succession to the French throne (Orléanist)? Is it because the duke married a Spanish Infanta, moving to Spain and becoming a pretender to the Spanish throne? Did he expressed his renunciation to the French throne? Thank you in advance! --Tonyjeff (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ome users requested a move to Aimone, Duke of Aosta. I opposed that and invite you to do the same. We have successfully opposed the move once before - we will do the same - but we need your help. Thanks for your participation. We have additional grounds now. See my discussion in the talk page, there was a Law decree on the Crown of king Zvonimir to which crown the right of rule has been transffered (like in the case of Crown of St. Stephen of Hungary). -- Imbris (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help once more, just with your vote oppose the renaming as you did before :-) -- Imbris (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Canvassing by Imbris. Please use your own good judgment and facts in making decisions. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. For several months now, the article naming for 18th Century British royals has been ever-which-where — all over the shop. In an attempt to solve this, I have prepared a page for discussion: here. Please, please, please come and discuss, even contribute to the Poll. Cheers! DBD 15:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Orleáns-Braganza is not part of the French Royal House, although it has become common on internet and even on Wikipedia to say so. - --Lecen (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. But that is irrelevant. The style of HRH was granted to all legitimate, male-line descendants of France's kings in 1824, when the Orleans, Conde and Conti branches of the royal dynasty were all extant cadets of the royal line. The style does not depend upon retention of dynastic rights -- otherwise the Head of the House of Orleans would not have agreed to recognize it for the descendants of Pedro de Alcantara and Elisabeth Dobrzensky in the 1909 Pacte de Famille. Moreover, both the Almanach de Gotha 1942, page 34 and the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Furstliche Hauser Bande XII, page 25 provide documented citation of the retention by the Orleans-Braganzas of HRH. But what I have not seen, which you have inserted in the article, is documentation for the right of the late Prince Pedro Luis of Orleans-Braganza for the title "Prince of Brazil". What is your source? Lethiere (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my 1863 copy of the 1824 Constitution with comments of a Jurist says otherwise:

Art.112 Quando as princezas houverem de casar, a Assembléia lhes assignará o seu dote, e com a entrega delle cessaráo os alimentos. (When the Princesses get married, the [General] Assembly shall give their dowry and when it is done, it shall end the payment of alimony.)

Art. 113. Aos principes que se casarem e fôrem residir fóra do Imperio se entregará por uma vez sómente uma quantia determinada pela Assembléia, com o qual cessarão os alimentos que percebião. (To the princes that get married and went to live abroad it shall be give only one monetary sum determined by the Assembly, of which shall end the payment of alimony that they had.)

So far, none of the articles says that any foreign prince or the one who lives the Empire shall be included in the line of succession. In fact, Art. 113 reveals that once a prince lives the Empire to live abroad (that is, forever), he shall not receive alimony that every prince of the Imperial House has the right to. I other words, he will no be a Brazilian prince anymore. But lets see the last article you mentioned:

Art. 119 Nenhum estrangeiro poderá suceder na corôa do Imperio do Brasil. (No foreigner shall succede to the crown of the Empire of Brazil.)

Jurist comments: Mas poderá succeder a corôa o estrangeiro naturalisado? A Constituição não o prohibe na sua letra, mas quem negará que o prohibe no seu espírito? Os estrangeiros naturalisados não podem ser ministros de estado (art. 136); não podem ser deputados (§ 2o do art. 96); também não podem ser senadores (Analyse ao art.45); como pois poderão succeder á coroa? (But the naturalized foreigner shall succede to the crown? The Constitution does not prohibit in its letter, mas who shall deny that it doest not allow in its spirit? The naturalized foreigners cannot be ministers of State (art.136); cannot be deputies (§ 2o do art. 96); also cannot be senators (Analysis of Art.45); so how they will be able to succede to the crown?)

Constituição Politica do Imperio do Brasil seguida do Acto Adicional, da Lei de suu interpretação e de outras analysada por um jurisconculto e novamente annotada com as leis regulamentres, decretos, avisos, ordens e portarias que lhe são relativas, por José Carlos Rodrigues. Rio de Janeiro. Em Casa dos Editores Eduardo & Henrique Laemmert. Rua da Quitanda, 77, 1863. - --Lecen (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the jurist you are quoting is simply expressing his professional opinion -- it is neither the official opinion of the Head of House, nor the (former, monarchical) government, nor is it law. Other jurists may have different opinions -- but those would not be official either. We must restrict ourselves to the words of the Constitution. Just as Victoria Eugenia of Battenberg converted to Catholicism when she married the King of Spain and forfeited her right of succession to the British crown, and all of her descendants have been Catholic and therefore ineligible to inherit, any future descendant of herss who does not become Catholic (or marry a Catholic) may inherit the British throne. Article 117 of Brazil's 1824 constitution does not restrict the throne to those who descend only from Brazilians. Article 119 simply says that any descendant of Dom Pedro I must be a Brazilian at the moment he/she succeeds to the crown -- not before. Some monarchies do deprive royal princes and their descendants of succession rights if they become foreigners -- France, Greece -- but their law must state this restriction. Lethiere (talk)

Fine, let´s use History as an example then: none of the children of Francisca ("Mana Chica") or Januária, sisters of Pedro II, were considered Brazilian Princes. Of the four children of Leopoldina, younger daughter of Pedro II, only the two eldest were considered Brazilian Princes and were raised by Pedro II and ONLY BECAUSE by 1871 (when they came to Brazil with their grandfather) Isabel had not become pregnant at that moment. Have you ever wondered why Pedro II did not become Pedro V of Portugal instead of his sister Maria II? Or why Maria II was not considered Pedro II´s heir in the place of Januária since she was the eldest daughter of Pedro I? And more, Ohannes Kabderian, personnal Secretary of Don Antonio of Orléans-Braganza and President of the Rio de Janeiro Monarchical Circle told me in January that neither Eleonora or her children were Brazilian Princes since none of them had any projection of living in Brazil and because Eleonora married to the Head of a foreign Noble House. The Saxe-Coburg-Gotha are also not considered Brazilian dynasts as their marriages were not equal and it has been for more than 100 years that they do not obey the Head of the Brazilian Imperial House. And no, I don´t care if these genealogy books says otherwise or says that they are French dynasts which they are not. Do as you please, but you are commiting a mistake, I´m telling you. - --Lecen (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with some of your changes in the Pedro II´s article. It does not make sense to say that the wet nurse received a room if that happened only 30 years later without propperly specifying it. Neither saying that she was from Morro do Queimado if no one knows that it now the city of Nova Friburgo. The information about Pedro II´s memories about his own mother are important also. - --Lecen (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he was wetnursed and the name of his wet nurse are of no historical significance whatsoever. But ather than delete them completely, I tried to shorten the information. These kinds of details (whether he kissed his dead mother's hand at birth or had no memories of her) do not belong here. This is an encyclopedia article on a dead emperor, not a book on a living ruler. This should be a summary of the important facts & acts of his life. You have wonderful sources, so please give us more info about his political struggles inside of Brazil and with his brother in Portugal -- which the article needs. Thanks. Lethiere (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime I write something in Wikipedia, I do it with a great care, as I always try to put realible sources on it. Articles like Economy of the Empire of Brazil, Military of the Empire of Brazil, [[Politics of the Empire of Brazil] and Platine War were all writing by me. It takes a very long time to make and it is not that easy. Writing about Pedro II was an old dream of mine as I believed (and still believe) that he was the center point of the Brazilian Empire. But it gets hard to write something, to even desire to write about it, when someone appears and try to act like a teacher and doesn´t even know the difference between Pedro I and Pedro II. The one who had "political struggles inside of Brazil" and fought "his brother in Portugal" was Pedro I. Not Pedro II. I had to tolerate your intrusion in the article about Prince Pedro Luiz as I never had any problem with no one in here and I expected that to never change. I wouldn´t be surprise if you put in there that Pedro II was an "Infante" of Portugal (something that his elder brothers were, but not him) and was in the line of succession to the Portuguese throne. It is obvious that I do not own Wikipedia or the articles and that it´s all a team work, but it´s hard to work with someone who doens´t even bother to learn a little bit about the subject. Havin said that, I´ll let you take care of Pedro II´s article. I won´t loose my time in there. - --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, I regret that I have offended you, which was not my intention. I did not know that you had always wanted to write about Dom Pedro II, and I hope that you will continue to do so on Wikipedia. Of course you know more than I do about the Brazilian monarchy, and of course I sometimes makes mistakes.

Therefore, although I do not agree, in a spirit of good will I will not edit out information which you insert anymore that I believe is of too little importance (although others may do so). But I will edit if I disagree about facts or if I think that NPOV is violated, because Wikipedia must be accurate and neutral and sourced: articles about a republic cannot be written from a monarchist POV, and Wikipedia cannot take sides between the Vassouras and Petropolis branches (I agree with you that the Petropolis branch has no dynastic rights in Brazil, but since some sources acknowledge their claim as valid {for instance, see Guy Stair Sainty's writings}, Wikipedia must also acknowledge it). Please keep in mind that a Wiki article is a summary of notable facts only and please remember NPOV. Enjoy! Lethiere (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: About the Prince of Orléans-Braganza, let me tell this:

1) In the autobiography of Isabel of Orléans-Braganza (granddaughter of Gaston d´Orléans, the comte d´Eu and wife of Henri, Head of the Royal House of France), she wrote that her grandfather RENOUNCED his position as French Prince in 1864 before his marriage to Isabel, Princess Imperial. And although he later tried to change the mind of his cousins to allow him to become once more a French Prince, he had NO right to it.

I had already read what the late comtesse de Paris wrote on this. More importantly, I have long been familiar with Gaston's letter to his father refusing to try to cling to his dynastic rights in France. I agree that the Orleans-Braganzas are not French dynasts. They (including Dom Pedro d'Alcantara, although he had alreaddy renounced to Brazil) are recognized, however, by the Head of the House of Orleans in the Pacte de Famille as "une Maison distincte de l'ensemble des branches de la Maison d'Orléans composant actuellement la Maison de France." The decision of the Pact was communicated to and accepted in international monarchist circles, and as a consequence the Almanach de Gotha thereafter accorded to them the non-dynastic HRH and princely style (yes, there are non-dynastic HRHs -- see Alfonso, Duke of Anjou and Cádiz and Queen Alexandra of Yugoslavia). You may consider the Princes of Orleans-Braganza "a joke", but you cannot impose your unsourced opinion on Wikipedia in defiance of the venerable Almanach de Gotha.Lethiere (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) His struggle to be accepted once again as a French Prince until 1909 is also told in a very good article in the magazine about Brazilian history called "História Viva". Also is told that the 1909 "pacte" did NOT accept him once more as a French Prince. If you want to know more about [read this article].

I read Heraldica's analysis when it was first siscussed on alt.talk.royalty, so I am very familiar with the fact that Gaston did not become a French dynast again. But he and his descendants have used the HRH and title "Prince d'Orleans-Bragance" ever since the Pacte de Famille (Sainty says they always remained Imperial Highnesses!) and that fact has been reported for 100 years by the Almanach de Gotha, which was the international gazette for dynastic acts until 1944. If the comte d'Eu was not HRH under French dynastic law after he married Isabel, who granted him that style?Lethiere (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3) While all French Princes were expelled from France in the 1880s simply for the fact that they were French Dynasts until the 1940s, Gaston d´Orléans and his family lived in France with no problem at all from 1889 up to 1922. I think that pretty much tells everything.

The French law of 1886 did not expel all French dynasts -- it only expelled the Head of the former ruling House and his heir. The cadet Orleans princes left France by choice, in protest. Lethiere (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4) It is impossible that Gaston d´Orléans was entitled as "Prince of Orléans-Braganza" when he was an Orléans and his wife a Braganza. The first Orléans-Braganza were their children.

Yes, my error. But Gaston and his dynastic & non-dynastic sons remained entitled to the style of HRH under the 1824 French decree. Lethiere (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5) Brazilian Monarchists never treated Isabel, or her son Luís, the Prince Imperial, nor Pedro Henrique, Head of the Imperial House up to 1981 as "Your Imperial and Royal Highness" but only as "Your Imperial Highness". A letter from 1958 written by Hans Friedrich von Ehrenkrok, chief editor of Handbuch des Adels, successor of the Almanach de Gotha says: "With basis on the documentation sent to me [...] by Y.I.H. [Your Imperial Highness] the Prince Pedro Henrique, I see in the person of Prince Pedro Henrique the current Head of the Brazilian Imperial House."

But your edits ignored the fact that now the Head of the House of Brazil does recognize the style of "Royal Highness" for members of his dynasty, yet only recognizes his heir-presumptive as "Prince of Brazil". No one ever said that "Brazilian monarchists" address the Orleans-Braganzas as "Royal Highness". But Wikipedia is not written from the POV of Brazilian monarchists alone. The OBs are HRH under the 1824 French decree, just as the Luxembourgeois cadets are. Lethiere (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6) It was Pedro Henrique, for reasons still unknown, that granted the titles "Prince of Orléans-Braganza" to his male children who renounced their positions as Brazilian Princes during the 1970s and 1980s. Which is odd because if it is trully a French title as some say, only the Head of the French Royal House could aknowledge, grant or recognize such title and never the Head of a Foreign House like Pedro Henrique. And yes, the Orléans-braganzas as French princes are nothing more than a great farse. - --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To whom must the Head of House give "reasons" for the titles he recognizes in his own family? Naturally, Pedro Henrique would not want his morganatically married descendants to bear a title inferior to that of the Petropolis morganauts. The 1909 Pacte de Famille was signed by the Head of the House of Orleans, so there was no need for Pedro Henrique to "grant" French titles to his cadets: He simply recognizes that the Vassouras morganauts now use the same title and style as the Petropolis branch used after the Pacte de Famille. Lethiere (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental disagreement here between us is that you seem to think that titles and succession rights must go together. But consider HRH Prince Michael of Kent: he forfeited his succession rights to the British crown upon marriage, but keeps his royal style and title until there is a decree that deprives him of it. That practice is not unheard of in dynasties: All of the Greek royals are legally "HH Prince/ss of Denmark", but they lost their succession rights in Denmark in 1950. Same as Prince Firso of Orange-Nassau. Lethiere (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we both started with the wrong foot and there is no reason at all to keep like that. Let´s give peace a chance, shall we? Anyway, although it is true that you´ll find in several places that the Orléans-Braganza, no matter if they are born of unnequal marriages or do not even own a French citizenship, they are entitled "Prince of Orléans-Braganza" and are in the line os succession. Even the Brazilian Imperial Family claims that! But because they do that and other sources do the same does not mean we should keep the mistake on and on. And I do believe that it is not a mistake, but a fraud. Of course I won´t write that in an article. And the "Pacte de Famille" does NOT grant anyone the title of "Prince of Orléans-Braganza" or allow someone into the line of succession to the French throne. And even if it did (and it doens´t!), it is impossible to someone to renounce its position as a Prince and than get it back. I pretend to write the article about the Prince of Orléans-Braganza and I would like your help. We could work together and put all sides on the table. But I´ll start on it only after day 28. Changing the subject a little bit, you considered the Saxe-Coburgo branch as dynastic, just as Eleonora and her children. The Brazilian Imperial Family, just like other Royal families had before (I don´t know if they do this practice up to this day) a custom that if a princess marry to a foreign prince with no intention to live in Brazil, it would lost its title. One of the illegitime daughters of Pedro I lost her title (even although she was illegitime!) when she married a foreign noble and went to live in Europe. And a letter written by the Monarchist Directory to Isabel in 1908 aknowledging her son´s Pedro renunciation says that the only legitimate line of succession at the time were the ones of Luís and Antonio (who died without getting married). - --Lecen (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lethiere, I wanted to say something to you... but I just swallowed my tongue.  !

http://gallica.bnf.fr/Search?q=Elisabeth+de+France&p=1&lang=en&ArianeWireRechercheHaut=palette

in box at upper right, click any first name & follow it by "de France".

Cordialement,

Frania W. (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lethiere, what I wanted to say to you (above) was merci. Frania W. (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does NOT exist. The very page you provided as 'evidence' says:

"The Royal Family name of Windsor was confirmed by The Queen after her accession in 1952. However, in 1960, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh decided that they would like their own direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal Family (without changing the name of the Royal House)"

The key part being WITHOUT CHANGING THE NAME OF THE ROYAL HOUSE. I'm giving you 24 hours to remove your incorrect edit on the article before I remove it myself and ask for admin intervention. FusionWarrior (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the cite given was a paraphrase of the actual document, an Order-in-Council issued in 1960, which is legally controlling. It says, in relevant part, "...Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor." (London Gazette, issue 41948, Feb. 8, 1960, p. 1/1003. See also the Times Feb 9, 1960 p. 10E.)

So only Elizabeth II and her children (no other descendants) are declared to continue bearing the name and continuing the House of Windsor by decree (her Wales grandsons or York granddaughters or their issue, coming to the throne, may also continue that name, but they are not required by any royal declaration to do so. It would be their choice). If her cadet descendants in the male-line should ever accede to the throne, e.g. Viscount Severn's issue, they do so under the surname of "Mountbatten-Windsor" unless the 1960 decree is changed -- which has not happened. I never stated that the Mountbatten-Windsors are currently a "royal house", merely that they descend in legitimate male-line from the House of Oldenburg via the royal house of Greece patrilineally and via the royal house of Windsor matrilineally. That and nothing more has been written into the House of Oldenburg article because it is accurate. Please do not make threats. Lethiere (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the full extract you cited says nothing more than that the descendants "shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor". That has absolutely nothing to do with the name of the House, does it? I really don't understand why you're not grasping the difference between a ceremonial surname and the name of the Royal House. That wasn't a threat, it was an attempt to put this disagreement into a clear timetable while avoiding an edit war. FusionWarrior (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's words were quite precise, I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor... She herself correlates her immediate family's surname and the name of the dynasty, declaring that they are co-extensive in her descendants -- for one generation only, that of her children. After that, the Order-in-Council is exhausted, except for continuation in her cadet descendants (which includes, e.g., Severn) of the name "Mountbatten-Windsor". If you can find any law or decree which documents a difference between any monarch's family name and that of his/her dynasty, please provide it: George V in 1917 and Elizabeth II in 1960 quite explicitly acknowledge that not only their dynasty, but their own name is "Windsor". Unless you wish to try to argue that Windsor was one of their Christian names, it is their family name/surname. According to British history and tradition, when monarchs ascend the throne or reign with surnames (e.g., Tudor, Stuart, Windsor), those surnames become the name of the dynasty. There is no reason to believe that future Mountbatten-Windsors would break with this tradition, but I am interested to see any evidence you might have which suggests otherwise. Therefore, nothing stated in the article is inaccurate and is subject to deletion on grounds of error or original research. Please do not initiate an edit war against correct article information. Lethiere (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't initiate an edit war against the incorrect changes you made; I was the one who stopped, remember? The very link you provided as evidence says the name of the House has not changed-- there is no mention whatsoever of the House of Mountbatten-Windsor. You are speculating on the existence of this House, relying on the descendants not "breaking with tradition". Indeed the only person you mention in this House is Viscount Severn. So the House of Mountbatten-Windsor is a one year old baby? It's nonsense. FusionWarrior (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using ((Please see)))[reply]

Greetings Lethiere-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lethiere! You can add the new userbox for the Royalty & Nobility taskforce, ((User WikiProject Royalty and Nobility)), to your userpage! - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:53, 4 June 2012 (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) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]