User talk:DBD/Archive 6

Archives

Archive 1 (Jul 2005 – Jul 2006) Archive 2 (Aug 2006) Archive 3 (Sep – Oct 2006) Archive 4 (Nov 2006 – Jan 2007) Archive 5 (Feb – Apr 2007) Archive 6 (May 2007) Archive 7 (Jun – Jul 2007) Archive 8 (Aug – Dec 2007) Archive 9 (Jan – Mar 2008) Archive 10 (Apr – Jun 2008) Archive 11 (Jul – Sep 2008) Archive 12 (Oct – Nov 2008) Archive 13 (Dec 2008 – May 2009) Archive 14 (Jun 2009 – May 2010) Archive 15 (Jun 2010 – Jan 2011) Archive 16 (Feb – Jul 2011) Archive 17 (Aug – Nov 2011) Archive 18 (Dec 2011 – Jan 2012) Archive 19 (Feb – Mar 2012) Archive 20 (Apr – Jul 2012) Archive 21 (Aug – Oct 2012) Archive 22 (Nov 2012 – Mar 2013) Archive 23 (Apr – Jul 2013) Archive 24 (Aug – Nov 2013) Archive 25 (Dec 2013 – Apr 2014) Archive 26 (May – Oct 2014) Archive 27 (Nov 2014 – May 2015) Archive 28 (Jun – Oct 2015) Archive 29 (Nov 2015 – Apr 2016) Archive 30 (May – Nov 2016) Archive 31 (Dec 2016 – Jul 2017) Archive 32 (Aug – Oct 2017) Archive 33 (Nov 2017 – Jul 2018) Archive 34 (Aug 2018 – May 2019) Archive 35 (Jun – Nov 2019) Archive 36 (Dec 2019 – Jun 2020) Archive 37 (Sep 2020 – Aug 2021) Archive 38 (Sep 2021 – Jun 2022) Archive 39 (Jul 2022 – Mar 2023) Archive 40 (Apr – Dec 2023) Archive 41 (Jan 2024 – May 2025)

May 2007

I'd be glad to help with a Holby WikiProject, let me know what you want me to do - the Casualty and Holby City episode/character articles need particular cleaning and sorting. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with the above - sounds good to me, count me in! Frickative 21:37, 8 May 2007 (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 19:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go take a hike, Mr Davies. Maybe you should look up WP:Vandalism before welcoming newbies in such a manner just because they disagree with you. But if that's how it works on wiki, then :

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Scottish monarchs. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 81.151.24.241 13:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that we can reach an understanding about the use of the surname "Windsor" in this article. I changed it because 1. the November 1917 proclamation of George V and the February 1960 letters patent of Elizabeth II make it clear that the surname of members of the UK's royal family who are Prince/ss and HRH is Windsor, and 2. Many people seem to think that there is some overriding legal principle that royalty ipso facto lack surnames, and this is an appropriate opportunity to correct that inaccuracy. If there is a reliable, printed source that states the legal name of Elizabeth II's children has changed, that would be news to me and we should cite it in the article. However, in your third revert today you assert that their legal surname has been rendered obsolete by recent usage. I am puzzled by this because your previous stated rationale for revert was they did not have surnames at all. Yet the 1917 proclamation clearly shows that they did and do -- therefore, I don't understand on what substantiated basis you continue to write in the article that those bearing royal styles lack a surname? The argument that their surnames are legally obsolete is 1. unsourced, and therefore an unsubstantiated personal opinion, and 2. inaccurate, because Time does not run against the King is a principle of British jurisprudence -- although I would argue that even if it weren't, there is no proof that the LPs in question have become "obsolete" after a mere 40 years: Princess Anne first used "Mountbatten-Windsor" as surname on her 1973 wedding document (at the plea of Lord Mountbatten), a mere 13 years after the LPs issued. Surely that did not void the Queen's official writ? On the other hand, we do seem to be in agreement that the Queen's children choose M-W when they need to use a surname, so is there a way that we can word this that builds on that fact but does not express unsubstantiated info? Lethiere 02:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to state, as I have observed, that the LPs do not state that there is a surname. A House and Family does not mean a House and a surname. There is a House of Oldenburg which is also the Oldenburg family, for instance. Royal birth certificates do not use a surname. Charles, Prince of Wales did not use a surname on his marriage certificate. How is it clear that the Royal Family did and does have a surname? Charles 04:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George V's Proclamation of 17 July 1917 states "Now, therefore, We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said name of Windsor." It may be argued that Elizabeth II's children, not being covered by this proclamation, inherited their father's surname, Mountbatten, if the Queen's 1960 LP are claimed not to have conferred the surname "Windsor" upon them. Or that they have the legal surname they prefer to use, Mountbatten-Windsor. But it cannot reasonably be asserted in the face of that proclamation that British princes and HRHs, ipso facto, have no surname. Nor have I seen reliable evidence for the contention that Elizabeth II's children legally lack any surname. I believe that it is a popular myth that royalty inherently lack surnames because many dynasties ascended thrones before surnames were used. But the point is that in light of the 1917 proclamation and the fact that legitimate children legally inherit their father's surname unless something legally hinders such inheritance, the burden of proof that the current Prince of Wales has no legal surname rests upon those that make that assertion. Since the article affirmatively states that Charles lacks a surname, I await a reliable citation that this is the case, otherwise it remains an unsubstantiated opinion. Lethiere 04:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Royal page addresses all of your queries about surname. My references say "As a titled royal, X holds no surname, but, when one is used, it is Mountbatten-Windsor" - note that it says holds, rather than officially has, because, as noted by that Royal page, officially, their surnames might be M-W. The third answer here says "use the surname"; so it at appears that, if the descendants of HM officially hold any surname, it's probably Windsor, but, name law in the United Kingdom includes the custom of "change of use" - i.e. whatever name you use most often, and are called by most often, is your name - in which case no male or unmarried female of blood royal has a surname. DBD 10:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you maintain that since HRH the Duke of Gloucester does not use the surname "Windsor" that it is not his legal name despite George V's Proclamation? Since it appears likely that none of the princely members of the Royal Family "used" or were "known" by "Windsor" since 1917, are you claiming that George V's proclamation had no effect on their name? And that Elizabeth II's 1960 official declaration about her and her children's surnames is null or obsolete? My difficulty here is that your use of "hold" still implies that the edicts of George V and Elizabeth II were legally ineffective -- despite the fact that I have seen no authoritative source in this discussion that affirms that view: no one alleges that George V and ELizabeth II lacked the authority to issue legally effective decrees on their family's surname, and no one authoritative has declared those names obsolete due to non-usage. Lethiere 04:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DBD. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:James Callaghan.jpg) was found at the following location: User:DBD/List of Prime Ministers' retirement honours. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DBD. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Macmillan.jpg) was found at the following location: User:DBD/List of Prime Ministers' retirement honours. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really want to get a new account, or just rename this one? If the latter, then the process at WP:CHU is the right place. -Amarkov moo! 00:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to grab the account as a secondary, because, as you can see, my signature uses my initials, and I want to avoid anyone else using it as a username - it would be an inactive account, and its userpage and talkpage would redirect to mine... DBD 00:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:D.B.D. already exists, so the account can't be created. If you think it's a big problem, you could create some other alternate account and usurp that one, but either way, DBD will be safe from creation. -Amarkov moo! 00:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DBD, I notice you added a succession box to Electress Sophia's page a couple weeks ago, listing James Francis Edward Stuart as the previous heir presumptive and the date as June 24, 1701. I'm no expert on British history or succession laws, but shouldn't the previous heir presumptive be Anne of Great Britain and the date be March 8, 1702, Anne's date of accession? Jpers36 21:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Fraid not – Sophia was made Anne's heir by Act of Parliament; who her heir was prior to this is not entirely clear, but by all rights, it would have been James DBD 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But from what I'm reading on Wikipedia, the Act of Settlement 1701 established the line of succession after William and Mary, and gave precedence to Anne (as well as any issue of Anne) over Sophia. This would make Anne heir presumptive (actually, probably heir apparent) from the enactment of the act until William's death, wouldn't it? Jpers36 21:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be right there – well done, oversight on my part! DBD 22:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've made the change. Thanks! Jpers36 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused with the mention of Stuarts and the house of Hanovers.... Didn't the Act of Succession bar ANY Stuarts from inheriting? Proberton 17:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most decidedly not! Electress Sophia and her descendants were only allowed to inherit because she was a Stuart! She was the highest person in the pre-Act line of succession to not be a Catholic or have married a Catholic, so she was made top of the post-Act line DBD 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're stuck, with that redicules sixteen... edit. I tride, Gad I tried. GoodDay 21:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello;

Regarding the use of Duke vs Prince at the top of the Infobox, I don't feel it is appropriate to downgrade the Duke's title from that a sovereign to that of a cadet member of the British royal family. The Duke's German title is included in the infobox and should therefore supplant the heading "Prince Charles Edward". Yes, he was a prince... A cadet prince. More importantly though, he was a sovereign duke. I will leave it for now as it is minor and I hope to briefly discuss it, but if it goes ignored I will probably change it again. Charles 22:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, do please revert to "Duke" – I was thinking on an absolute scale, of prince supplanting duke, but what you've said makes sense! Cheers DBD 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think though that the head of the box should also include the principal style or title though? Like Prince Charles Edward, Duke of SC&G? Upon first glance (which some people do), "Prince Charles Edward" is pretty nondescript. Charles 01:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the bug 'name' field was designed to describe the name of the person, and the 'title' field directly underneath it to provide his most common title, in this case Duke of SC&G and Albany. DBD 12:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me at Lady Louise Windsor. I am getting increasingly annoyed by a user who refuses to acknowledge she is officially HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. I've tried pointing out the 1917 Letters Patent, but he ignores it. Help would be much appreciated! --UpDown 17:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's a very confusing matter, between the 1917 LP and the Queen being "the fount of all honour", ascertaining the legality of it all is hard indeed – I'm no longer willing to come down on either side – I've asked at the Royal website, and will wait for a reply or ask at Buck House when I work there in the summer. I'd favour, in the meantime, a compromise where we adjust the page to make clear just how nuanced the matter is... DBD 18:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DBD: Thanks for your level head on this. The user above your message here, unable to deal with the answer you provided, repeatedly vandalised your contributions in your absence. I guess there is no surprise there. Thought you should be aware of it. I've tried to clearly explain things but there is a total inability to understand. See what answer you receive from BP as I have made known the answer they provided for me. I support what you have said here. Aussiebrisguy 20:14 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed in the Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex article that there is mention that prior to his marriage there were rumors (or rumours as you would say) of the Prince's sexual orientation. This sounds like unsubstantiated gossip. Do you agree that that it should be removed? --rogerd 18:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't be removed – that there were rumours is a fact, so we ought to leave it in there. If we were to write "Prince Edward is gay", that would be libellous, but we merely report that there were rumours, however unsubstantiated. DBD 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some kind of reference available that would show that these were widespread rumors? I still feel like it is a WP:BLP violation. --rogerd 18:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I have to agree with rogerd on this one DBD. Providing as a source a mere rumour is not verifiable fact. The fact that some writes "Rumour has it ..." in front of the statement does not change the inference. It is treated in a similar fashion. Most would end up in the dock for such a statement apart from those protected under parliamentary privilege. Even there they would be censured by the Speaker of the House in a Westminster system Parliament and made to withdraw the remark. Printing of unsubstantiated gossip or rumour and then using it as a source is not usually given any academic credence as a reliable source. Aussiebrisguy 20:21 27 May 2007 (UTC)

For goodness' sake - Wikipedia is not going to be taken to court for reporting the sourced fact that rumours exist. Nothing libellous has been said - the article does not read "Prince Edward is gay" - which is a libellous statement - it says that there have been rumors about his sexuality - with a source - which are notable to the article. To use another example of when rumours are notable, see Spice Girls#Future and reunion speculation - the persistent rumours are notable to the article, as are the rumours about Prince Edward. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You're editing a new page Line of succession to the British Throne/Sandbox. Did you mean to name that User:DBD/Sandbox/Line of succession to the British Throne? Thought I should ask before I moved it. Thanks, Clicketyclack 19:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure – is subpaging a regular namespace article not acceptable? DBD 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, see Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses. Recommended practice is to create the subpage in Talk (e.g. Talk:Line of succession to the British Throne/Temp), or in your own sandbox, then move the finished goods over to the main namespace. Happy to move that for you if you want, or you might want to do that yourself.

That's quite an intricate page you're building there, by the way! Looks like it might take a while to build. Thanks, Clicketyclack 21:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday, DBD/Archive 6, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

The Wikipedia Birthday Committee wishes you a very happy birthday! Enjoy your special day.

Politics rule 00:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While they belong to the House of Windsor by law, technically they belong to the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg as Elizabeth II married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh who is of the House of Glücksburg making their children members of Glücksburg as well. Princes Charles, William, and Harry have already been under the House of Glücksburg category for quite some time now without debate. Just as when Victoria married Albert, Prince Consort, their children were in the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha until its name was changed to Windsor. The category of House of Glücksburg should remain in addition to House of Windsor since it is the correct house to which they belong. --Caponer 15:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above conversation, I would appreciate your help in trying to keep this statement on Prince Edward's page. User:Aussiebrisguy, who has caused so many problems, insists this should be deleted as libelious. I have tried to explain its not, but he has problems keeping his POV out of anything he writes. He now suggests I hate Prince Edward, which is certainly not the truth I just wish this article to be fair. I would appreciate your help, as I am going (or have done) break 3RR. I think Aussiebrisguy needs to be warned officially to be NPOV. --UpDown 17:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proves the point about the above person breaking the 3RR and it would appear he also needs to be warned officially about NPOV. To insult a living person openly on a wikipedia page is dangerous territory. I have been doing research trying to find any fact and have found none. Rumour of course does not equal fact. It is just a coward's way of trying to appear they are not associated with the content. It would seem there is one rule for the above and another for me which seems hardly a NPOV. It is worthwhile noting in your absence the above person has ceased altering other matters which he had been repeatedly altering until you put a stop to it. I guess some things are gradually being understood. I don't claim to be perfect. I do find when inaccurate information is presented that it is misleading for those who might choose to rely on wikipedia as a credible source based on verified fact rather tha rumour mongering and gossip. Aussiebrisguy 20:37 27 May 2007

I have just read the above by User:UpDown. In your absence he has been repeatedly altering YOUR article and causing no end of grief. He has repeatedly broken the 3RR and seems to be in complete denial of this. He does have a problem with Prince Edward, period. I recorded a certain word in the hope that he would desist in his constant vandalism. Sadly it had no effect. He seems to be under the misapprehension that unfounded "rumour" is "verified fact". He seems to be unaware of the laws of libel. There is no difference between spreading malicious rumours and actually making a declaration about somebody. They both amount to the same thing : slander. I would like to see this page resolved. We both know Prince Edward deserves to be treated with a modicum of respect. He is a living person and a member of the royal family. He is increasingly respected for the work he does as a member of the royal family and is officially invited to many countries, not just Queen's Realms. I have tried to explain to him matters concerning terminology and he chooses to ignore this. I believe we both tried to alert UpDown about his extreme POV. He would like me to compromise. I am open to this. Evidence of this has been my defence of your page. Usually compromise can be reached about factual matters when factual honesty occurs and slander of a living person doesn't. Wikipedia as you know has rules about such matters. UpDown does not seem to understand this. I would truly like this to be ended. It reflects very poorly on the credibility of wikipedia which I know both you and I wish to see defended. I think UpDown needs to be warned officially to be NPOV. --Aussiebrisguy 10:54, 27 May 2007

How amazing you are. You are the one wanting to remove anything that doesn't portray Edward in an amazing light from his page; you are the one with a POV. Another editor has reinserted the comment on Prince Edward's page. You must realise that you POV has no place on Wikipedia. And in the above you say "your page"; articles don't belong to people. User:DBD does not own the Prince Edward page anyone more than you or I do. --UpDown 11:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] Can you prove that User:UpDown has a problem with Prine Edward? No. Can you prove that there have never been rumours about his sexuality? No. Can it be proven that there have been rumours about his sexuality? Yes. Also, I am dumbfounded that you think that just because this man is a royal, that he deserves preferential treatment on Wikipedia. That is an NPOV violation if ever I saw one. All articles, and therefore the content and subject of them should be treated equally on Wikipedia, no matter how much the subject is "respected" - another statement I doubt you can verify. I don't think UpDown is at all in violation of the NPOV rules, and certainly isn't removing content just becuase they disaree with it. This issue will be resolved (with your blocking) if you continue to remove this information from the page. Oh, and DBD, sorry for doing this on your talk page, but it needed to be said. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DBD you might like to respectfully remind Trampikey about common manners. He has subjected me to some obscene language today which seems very sad. This whole situation is very sad. I do not believe I have deserved what others have subjected me to when all I have wanted to do is clean up what has been a rather messy and inaccurate page on wikipedia. It would appear to be. Aussiebrisguy 20:44 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, diversionary tactics. I used the phrase "shit-stirring" on Aussiebrisguy's talk page, which he seems overly upset with, evidently so much so that he cannot address the valid points I put across on his page. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have all seen, it is my birthday. I have better things to do today. I'll be back to start banging heads together tomorrow. DBD 14:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm very sorry we're arguing on your talk page on your birthday. Happy birthday. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Buzcocks-Series 19.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 22:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your userboxes for Yeoman editors and Experienced and Established editors were absolutely excellent. I hope you don't think it a liberty, but I also stuck a new category in each one so we can track the future use of the template (which I suspect is going to become very popular in time). --Legis (talk - contributions) 14:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]