Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:34, 27 April 2023

Casablanca

For a movie with an extensive histroy, historial significance AND many discussions in popular culture, have additional information about the airplane in the movie is not "excessive". Please don't remove this edit again, it is properly sourced and attributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxq32 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hyderabad

Why did you reject the edit for calling it Bhagyanagaram? 141.89.103.177 (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Ernest Shackleton

You indefinitely blocked Talk:Hanoi Road in June 2021 following an incident being raised at ANI. Today, we had an IP editor making the same claim of an RFC that doesn't exist, which is what that editor was claiming. Seems slightly suspect but I'm not sure that is enough to make a case for socking while indeffed? Would you mind taking a look and telling me what you think?

Regards, WCM_email 21:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Titles and Styles

Hello! I will start with apologies for my prior mistakes regarding Prince George, Duke of Kent, Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent and Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood. I understand the problem with original research, but I also don't understand how some of what I added was OR (especially since it is the same case elsewhere), particularly regarding Princess Marina, where I used sources for all of her used titles and styles (though some of them admittedly required some work to find). If you could counsel me on a better course of action that would be much appreciated! Estar8806 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:No original research for guidance. DrKay (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I am curious to know why the Canadian Scottish Regiment website is not a reliable source though it is used elsewhere on wikipedia. I understand self published sources, but shouldn't it be considered reliable if it is an official website for an official unit of the Canadian Army? Estar8806 (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:CIRCULAR. That website is copied from wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• 1902-1910: His Royal Highness Prince George of Wales
• 1910-1934: His Royal Highness The Prince George
• 1934-1942: His Royal Highness The Duke of Kent

Would this be acceptable for the Duke of Kent? The article already establishes he was the son of the prince of Wales (George V). Estar8806 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Since the source says "His Royal Highness Prince George", no. What you've written doesn't match the source. DrKay (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• 1902-1910: His Royal Highness Prince George of Wales
• 1910-1934: His Royal Highness The Prince George
• 1934-1942: His Royal Highness The Duke of Kent

Here the definite article is used. Estar8806 (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Does something this difficult to source adequately and that can only be sourced to primary sources belong in the article? I would argue not. DrKay (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Clown Prince of Greece

I'd like to inform you that Greece has abolished monarchy since 1974 after a plebiscite. Yes, the plebs decided that they no longer want monarchy. So, there's no such thing as crown prince of greece, only clown prince of greece 79.167.179.167 (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Primary source

Regarding this edit, do you consider British Pathé to be a primary source or are you taking issue with it because it was uploaded on YouTube? Because if the latter is the problem, I can use this link from the British Pathé website as the source instead. Let me know. Keivan.f 18:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The only source is the speech itself. DrKay (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yet I did not rely on the speech's content to write what I had written and rather used British Pathé's summary of it. And if you think that's not enough there's also this page by the BBC which covers it in detail. Any objections to this one? Keivan.f 22:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi you find barnstar to Elizabeth II Thanks — KFC (🔔 • 📝) 13:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Chris Lewis

Re the CL edit. I went to school with Chris. Can name his teachers and schools. How would I reference myself as the source? Rawhiti (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

You can't. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Material that is not published by a reliable source should not be included. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots letters

Hi. Since you are the top contributor to this article I thought it would be a good idea to bring this newly discovered series of letters to your attention. It is mentioned that in the letters Mary complained about her poor health, spoke of her distrust towards Walsingham, and talked about sending presents to Elizabeth's officials to win them over. I was wondering if it was worthy of inclusion in any way, shape or form in the main article, but since you're the one with knowledge about the details I decided to bring it up here first. Let me know if there is any useful information here. Keivan.f 22:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The Million Award for you!

Mary Queen of Scots

Hello DrKay DrKay (talk) please see this new source see lignes 7/11 Narrative of the Execution of the Queen of Scots The text I started to read today is the excerpted long letter sent by Robert Wingfield to his uncle, Robert Cecil, the equivalent of the prime minister in Queen Elizabeth’s time. The young man was sent to Fotheringay for the express purpose of witnessing the execution and describing it to his uncle, and also presumably the Queen. I guess that is the reason why he takes such pains to note down absolutely everything, including Mary’s dress and appearance on the last day of her life. He even describes her garters and stockings, which I presume he didn’t have the opportunity to see while she was alive, in which case… creepy. Mary’s attire is rich but sombre, mostly in black. She is no longer the beauty admired by the French court – she is still very tall (she was probably nearly 6 foot tall, unusual especially for a woman in these times), but also quite stout, double-chinned and has to wear a wig because she’s lost her hair. She was 45, so hardly an old woman yet, but she had a lot of health problems (some people suspect porphyria, a genetic disease supposedly haunting the Stuarts) and I guess she had not had enough exercise for the last twenty years, taking into account that the only .exercise for the woman of her social standing would be horse-riding. Mary accepts the news about the day of her execution with Christian resignation, although she cries a lot. As I wrote earlier, she apparently did retain her fashion sense even on the day of her execution. She also wears many religious emblems, including the medallion “Agnus Dei” (Lamb of God), which is printed in the NAEL as “Angus Dei”. I wonder if it’s a misprint of the NAEL’s typesetter or Wingfield’s mistake. Her servant Andrew Melville (again, mistakenly called by Wingfield Melvin), falls down on his knees and cries, saying he is going to be the bearer of the worst news ever. Mary also crying, comforts him, saying that she welcomes death as the end of her troubles and that the good news he is going to bear is that she died like a true queen and Catholic. She says she always dreamt about uniting England and Scotland and asks to tell her son James (who never saw her, I mean consciously, since she left him as an infant) that she never did anything to hurt Scotland’s interests. Then she addresses the gentlemen around her, asking them to settle the accounts with her servants and to treat them well, to which they agree. She also asks them to allow her servants to witness her execution, but the earl of Kent protests, saying that he’s afraid they are going to get hysterical and give her even more pain, or they are going to indulge in superstitious practices like dipping their handkerchiefs in her blood. The English are apparently very afraid of creating relics and making Mary a martyr. https://readingnorton.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/narrative-of-the-execution-of-the-queen-of-scots/ SeriousHist (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Hy Dr Kay, I don’t know if you remember me, I was the one who added important contributions missing in the Elizabeth Tudor article ( North America Plus the East India Company) ; here I want to discuss the issue here because you are the main contributor of the great article Mary Queen of Scots ; First the source is on page 289 not 288 if it is available online please check it line 21 ; 289 with a pillow, but not to have put her to so open a death. pwas the opinion of the King of France and of others. ha sigaling the death warrant Elizabeth had gone as far as she was prepared to go. She expected someone else to take the responsibility and the blame for dispatching it; and the wretched Davison, perceiving that it might fall to him to be made the scapegoat, spread the responsibility to Burghley and other councillors. They quietly sent the warrant off. Tuesday, February 7th, 1587, Mary received warning that she was to die the next morning. She showed no terror. She denied complicity in the Babington Plot, inferred that her death was for her religion, and forgave her enemies, in the full confidence that God would take vengeance on them. wE Much of the night she spent in prayer. About 8 a.m. the gif sheriff and his company escorted her to the Hall of the Castle, where arrangements had been made for the execu ton. She was dressed all in black, a veil of white lawn over be halt, a crucifix in her hand, her beads hanging from her side, She was forty four, and, save for the fleeting days after her escape from Lock Leven, had been a prisoner fo Just on twenty years. The charm of youth was gone; shs was corpulent, round-shouldered, fat in the face, and double-chinned; her auburn hair was false. epalled at the at at parting from her servants, Please check DrKay (talk). Second I made a mistake in the name it is Robert Wingfield of Upton https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Andrew-McLean/dp/0954474856 Or https://wingfieldfamilysociety.org/execution-of-mary-queen-of-scots/ Or https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9780954474850/Execution-Mary-Queen-Scots-Eyewitness-0954474856/plp Or https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18400586 http://www.librarything.com/work/19696972 Lord Burghley was his uncle Thank you SeriousHist (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousHist (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) SeriousHist (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC) DrKay (talk) Thank you, I m waiting for your answer before I take it to the talk page of the article. I respect you and your work a lot but I need an answer, I already posted on my talk page without receiving an answer for many days, if you don’t want to add it seeing it as no useful so be it , I m not insisting . — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousHist (talk • contribs) 18:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Prince Philip

Thanks for your clarification on the statement in Prince Philip's article. I read "his son and daughters-in-law" as being one of his sons plus his daughters-in-law, rather than his children's spouses of both genders. Now if only some editors would behave themselves. Векочел (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Fernando Valerio

Hey DrKay, I replied to your message on my page. Nitrotree (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to WP:CIII

Hello. Just in case you missed it, there's a task force up at WP:CIII which you may be interested in. There is, of course, no obligation to participate, but if you do, it is very much appreciated.

Best wishes, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Iamalwaysrightalways

Last year you blocked this editor and it appears that they are using the IP address 2603:7000:A940:33FA:5152:2D05:EC71:8290 to evade their block. Here an edit from the IP address and here is one from the blocked account . As these are the only two editors that have made an edit like this in the article's history it looks like we might have a duck. Deadman137 (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

1862 Greek head of state referendum

Hey, I just wanted to discuss the changes I made to this Misplaced Pages article and why I believe the changes made were correct, to the best of my knowledge. So basically I made 2 edits, one concerning the number of votes that a particular candidate received (Prince Amadeo of Italy), and the other concerning the title used to refer to another particular candidate. With regards to the vote count edit, the source used attributed to the vote count (Note no.8) does indeed state that 'Prince Amadeo of Italy' garnered 15 votes, not 13, which I attributed to a misinterpretation from the original author of the article since the two numbers, admittedly, do look similar. With regards to the candidate's title edit, the same source as previously mentioned refers to a particular candidate as 'Prince Imperial of France' and not 'An Imperial Prince of France'. However, I do acknowledge that there is a second source attributed to this particular candidate (Note no.7), which I have not been able to access, and so if it contains any additional information which contradicts or challenges my views on the matter, I will gladly take this into account. Nevertheless, based on the information I have seen, the title of 'Prince Imperial of France' would be correct as that was the officially recognised title of the heir to the French Imperial throne, and so it could only be Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, son of Emperor Napoleon III, as he was alive at the time and held the title 'Prince Imperial of France' (Napoleon III was also listed as one of the candidates according to Note no.7). This is in comparison to the title of 'An Imperial Prince of France' which was not a recognised title given to members of the House of Bonaparte, with the titles given being 'French Prince' and later on 'Prince Napoleon'. I would be grateful if my comments are taken into account, and if I am mistaken about anything, I will gladly accept your feedback. Thanks in advance! Jedi Master Wysk (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Charles III

Sorry if, at times, discussion on Charles III gets a bit perfervid. It's water under the bridge. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

"Proclamations" close

I agree with your closing of the Proclamations section, but c'mon. Don't engage in personal attacks in your edit summary. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You mean personal attacks such as being called a liar? DrKay (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

1. "No. 34094". The London Gazette. 9 October 1934. p. 6365.
2. "No. 14029". The Edinburgh Gazette. 6 June 1924. p. 765.
3. "No. 34094". The London Gazette. 9 October 1934. p. 6365.