Well done; please would you do your greased lightning bit on Baronetage of England. Stage 1 then done. - Kittybrewster 10:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Is there a To Do list for this project? I can't find one. Is there an overall plan? Is there a list of pages that need copyediting or fact checking? Thanks!"
Not afaik, yes and to some extent. If you look at the project page you can see what's supposed to be at each title. ie
The history of the title and associated titles including creation dates.
The remainder (i.e., the rule for inheritance of the title if other than heirs male of the body lawfully begotten)
A list of the holders of the titles and of the associated titles.
Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, I don't have access to sources that will provide me with information about current peers, their heirs, etc. What I have is a set of 19th century peerages and a stack of photocopies from Cokayne. Shall I just sort of wander around and fill in dates of creation when I can? Or anything else I notice? Laura1822 20:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google works wonders as there are various sites they will often tell you the heirs to various peerages (title + heir or title + children searches) google groups like [1] can be very helpful for births deaths. Dates of creation are great and your period bits may help fill in some holders/details or create articles. We often have an article for the first holder of a title and the present holder but nothing for those between simply becuase those details tend to be harder to find. As ever anything helps and whatever you can do will help. Alci12 10:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. And who was James's successor as Governor of Ceylon? - Kittybrewster 00:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can post basic genealogical info from the standard 19th century sources, but I don't know anything about him. Laura1822 00:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, he's only a knight so there's nothing in the peerages. But I found:
Howdy, posting here because I see that you are working on the article on Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor. I am confused about his third wife, or rather, her mother. The Wiki article says her mother was Katherina of Anjou. The Genealogics website says she was Katherine of Hungary. Neither gives any info on her parents. I've searched through those listed as Counts of Anjou of this period and cannot find her listed as a daughter of any of them. I found a tree at WorldConnect saying she was a daughter of Charles I of Hungary, but the wiki article doesn't list any daughters -- sorry! There's my answer, staring me in the face! I can't find any other references to confirm or deny, and I don't know where else to look. Any ideas? I will add a note in the article on Charles IV, for your reference. Thanks for your hard work! Laura1822 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. Thank you for trying to work out "King of Germany." It's a very confusing nomenclature![reply]
Well, I was just going to write a note to say that I could see it there. Charles came from the Angevin line that ruled Naples and his father had become King of Hungary. Here's a good place to dig around those families of Charles IV. Are you working on him? I was going to have a go at expanding that page and cleaning it up a bit, so maybe we can co-operate.qp10qp 17:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't working on him specifically; I am working on my personal genealogical database, focusing on the Habsburgs but filling in info all around. Wikipedia is one of the best sources available and it was through working on this family that I decided to become an editor. I would be happy to help you with copyediting or any specific research you require. Thanks so much for your response! Oh, and for the terrific link! Laura1822
Well (doffs cap), if I'd known I was talking to a Habsburg…
On your other question, there's no real protocol where to answer on user:Talk pages. Some people post a note at the top stating their preference. The most common style is for users to answer questions on the other's page, but I like to put questions and answers together so that they make sense. Some people are touchy about being asked questions on user pages rather than article talk pages, but not most. I do think it's a good idea to copy any detailed editing talk to the article Talk page in question. Anyway, best of luck (walks backwards out of the room). qp10qp 19:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I'm no Habsburg! I just maintain a database of royals and nobles for fun! Sorry for the confusion! Thanks for your answer to my question-- I think it makes a lot more sense to keep questions and answers together, too; but should I put a copy of my answers on your Talk page, i.e., always create a duplicate set on my Talk page and the other person's Talk page? Laura1822
hello Laura1822, and a belated welcome to Wikipedia from my side as well. Thank you for your kind message, that's really sweet of you. Of course you can use anything from my page, this is Wikipedia after all :-) let me know if you ever need help and I can do anything. with kind regards Gryffindor 22:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thank you so much! I love my new peace dove! Laura1822
The welcome bot seems to have forgotten you, so I thought I would offer you a round tuit to make up for the discourtesy. I think you may need it. - Kittybrewster 19:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Someone gave me a whole stack of round tuits in about 1976. I lost them a long time ago! Laura1822 23:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i have made a stab at answering your question on left at Talk:Philip_I_of_Castile at Mary of Burgundy. If you like, you could also add the info to the Joyous Entry page. Eusebeus 12:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Joyous Entry (Joyeuse Entree in French / Blijde Inkomst in Dutch) was the physical act of the Lord entering his domain and receiving fealty from his subjects. It thus attains something of the significance of Coronations, except, of course, the various provinces of the Low Countries which had the Blijde Inkomst were not subject to kingship. When, exactly, the ceremony attains this consitutional singifiance is not known to me, but it would be different for the various provinces presumably - Brabant and Flanders being the most significant. Eusebeus 15:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for leaving your own welcome on my 'Discussion' page. Poor old Kittybrewster is getting some stick on this one, so I'm sure that he'd appreciate some support - even if only moral! Incidentally, I take it that you've seen what he thinks of lawyers as posted on his User page... .--Major Bonkers 09:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I know about Hong Kong would fit onto a postage stamp, but I have posted on a couple of Hong-Kong-related project pages asking for assistance. I will also go do a bit of Googling to see if I can find some info. Don't these people have anything better to do, like improve the articles they're interested in? Laura1822 00:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find your comments on User talk:Kittybrewster to be helpful, as warnings and blocks are not a matter of public opinion but of the application of policies. The no personal attacks policy, contrary to your comments, does not justify personal attacks under any circumstances. Please review that page if you're still confused about the policy. As for your claims that Kittybrewster is being "stalked" and "harassed," Tyrenius and I have both asked for diffs substantiating those claims, and none were forthcoming. | Mr. Darcytalk 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on my talk page which I certainly found helpful and encouraging. I think MrDarcy is unduly harsh in dishing out blocks which (I think) he seems to see as punishment; Tyrenius is less harsh but is supportive of Darcy; he is also generally more thoughtful, WP:AGF, fair and constructive. In fact I often agree with Tyrenius but rarely with Darcy – which I think is allowed. Darcy seems to assume life is long enough for people to run about scooping up a train of differences – which may be true for him but is not for me. As you put it, I prefer to let it go and end it now. I am probably about to be blocked for a comment about the excellent Proteus. In America you say “different than”, in England we say “different from” (and similar to and compared with) and some folks say “different to” which is not very Jane Austen. - Kittybrewster 10:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Re the Request for Comment for User:Vintagekits, you need to re-endorse/sign again. According to a helper you signed off in the wrong area, and need to endorse the area directly above where you endorsed the RfC called Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Thanks!!O'Donoghue 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for pointing this out to me, but the description of the section you cite is: Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute. I do not think I have done that. I have commented/voted on a few AfDs and stated my opinion publicly on Kittybrewster's Talk page, but I have avoided getting involved in any depth. Laura1822 17:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here where Kitty states that he forced the AfD therefore it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.Vintagekits 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your congratulations on my barnstar. It was most unexpected Most of us try to do our best for the project but there are some who are just blatantly disruptive and real nasty bullies. Others are on a power thing - usually directed against the wrong people. It is a shame because so much constructive work could be done here. David Lauder 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it's taken so long to reply, I've been in NM for a long time. About the section, I think that if it's going to be such a problem with vandalism and such, it wouldn't be worth putting back up. Because I only counted counties that touch the Gulf, it doesn't really show the gulf's impact on other population, which is nearly impossible to see. I put it there just to be a kind of interesting fact thing, so, we aren't missing too much without it on there.
AlaGuy 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laura. Could please tell me about this: Laura1822/monobook.js? What is that mean for?--Muddyb Blast Producer (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh y dear friend, I didn't understand you well. My English is too poor. If you want me to understand you, you have to write simple English for help! Please forgive me for mess you up! Tell me again in simple way! Cheers,--Muddyb Blast Producer (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Thanks for your correction. But it's been a long, long time since I've written you the message! Cheers.--Mwanaharakati(Longa) 06:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to join WikiProject United States[edit]
Hello, Laura1822! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much to my extreme annoyance, the comments that you made with regard to the photographs in the article have gone entirely unheeded, and this article proceeded to DYK status on the front page, with the two photographs in it. I have left terse comments on the DYK errors page, and an objection to its DYK status on the article's discussion page. Nobody had bothered to follow up your comments and respond to them. How did it get through to DYK without anyone checking the discussion page?
Anyway, I have deleted the offending pictures, which may cause a furore. Just letting you know! Amandajm (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note! I had no idea about the DYK! The photos aren't objectionable in and of themselves, only with the false legend attached to them. In fact I think they are interesting as records of court dress-- and Victoria did marry in court dress, just not that one. :-) In fact I think that the 1842 portrait by Winterhalter (the one with her coronet almost vertical on the back of her head) is the wedding dress, minus most of the lace. I think it's really interesting that she loved the lace so much she reused it over and over, and I'm reasonably sure that the claims that it's the lace in her 1887 (and probably 1897) jubilee photographic portraits are true. But I wouldn't put such claims in a Wikipedia article myself, because there doesn't appear to be enough published data on the subject. (It might be found in her journals, which I think have been published online, but I'm not interested in doing that level of research right now.)
The domestic lace itself is a very nice tie-in to the Duchess of Cambridge's dress, and definitely worthy of mention, as it nods to so many other royal brides since Victoria, including Elizabeth in 1947.
In any event, on the talk page I provided what I thought were significant citations and leads for someone to put the article in order, and only wish that I had the time and energy to do it myself. Also, with the Kensington exhibition, it would be really nice to extend the "wedding dress" series to include Princess Charlotte of Wales (1816), and I'd love to see articles for all royal brides right back through the eighteenth century, and the seventeenth too. (And much earlier, if it could be done.) So thanks for paying attention! Laura1822 (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 1[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Windsor Beauties, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anne Spencer, Countess of Sunderland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re your recent edit to Texas City, Texas, I am stumped to understand how any part of Texas City could possibly be in Chambers County, as the two are separated from one another by the bay. I do see a "Anahuac CCD 90075" that is in both Chambers County and in Texas City, but that's a U.S. Census designation (CCD=Census county division) that has no legal authority outside the scope of the census. Can you elaborate on your source, with references? —Danorton (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A wikilink in another article is not a citation. The citation given on that page is to a bio of Mark Poltimore that makes no reference to him being Baron Poltimore. Baron Poltimore's name is actually Mark Coplestone Bampfylde. I will add a note that they need citations in the articles. concerning the "60's": I am not discussing "style guides to proper grammar" or even any "precedence over basic grammar rules". The Cast list is just listing the actors as they are billed with the roles given as they are given in the film. If you would feel better about putting it in quotes that is fine, but all roles could have quotes around them, that seems to me to be implicit in them.AbramTerger (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to prove it to me, just create the proper citations in the articles. His link in the film should also not point to an article about the title but to an article about the person. [We would not eg link a reference to Obama to an article about the President of the United States, but to an article about him]. It seems to me that the article Baron Poltimore should have a link to the wiki page of the current namesake and links to any other notables of that title. Since there seems to be no link to a personal page, I see no reason to add any wikilink for it from the film. It has a citation to his bio now. If you want to create an article to link that is fine as well. AbramTerger (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're a bot, you probably won't be back, but for the record, the unpaired bracket is in the filename. Laura1822 (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 15[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tom Burke (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gerard Murphy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Princess Augusta of Great Britain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Altona. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 2 October 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) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge[edit]
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!
Hello, Laura1822. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Laura1822. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Laura1822. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ambrosius Bosschaert may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
