PurpleHz

Categories

You're right — it would definitely be odd to describe modern Dukes of York as "Dukes in England" simply because York is in England. (To me, "Dukes in England" would just mean "Dukes (of whatever Peerage or nationality) who happen currently to be in England".) Titles normally correspond to places within the geographical area of their Peerage, but not always (the Earl of Mexborough is an Earl in the Peerage of Ireland, but Mexborough is in Yorkshire, for instance), and so it's dangerous to imply too close an automatic connection between country and title. And yes, our categorisation of Dukes is a little odd. I'd take "Category:Dukes of York" out of "Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom" etc., and put them both in "Category:Dukes" (or "Category:British dukes"). Proteus (Talk) 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting, in fact you just say that this user and I are wrong. "Category:British dukes" seems promising as a sub-cat of "Dukes". Thanks again ! --PurpleHz 01:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

RE:Oxford DNB

I don't think there is any free way. And sadly it is very expensive, but will be free if you're part of an institution that subscribes to it (e.g. a university). Email me with your user address and I'll send you the article if you like. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Gripe at anonymous user

FYI, the IP address from which someone did a bit of vandalism got rotated quite quickly over to someone else (me!) that Didn't Do It. Seems likely that griping at random IP addresses isn't very useful... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.229.38 (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What?!

Hi! Can you please explain to me why you removed the picture of Bare-eyed Thrush from the pertinent article? It's most certainly correct! MeegsC | Talk 22:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the problem! I've put the wrong scientific name on the picture. I used a world listing and just looked up "Bare-eyed Thrush" without realizing there are two species with that common name—and I used the African thrush name rather than the South American one. I'll correct that now... MeegsC | Talk 22:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right :) PurpleHz 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

K. elegans

The fruit of K. bipinnata and K. elegans are almost identical. From what I can tell, it's the flowers that separate them. The pictures I took are of plants growing here in Casino and K. elegans is listed as an invasive species here. In fact, I can find no record of K. bipinnata growing in this part of the world at all. Peter1968 00:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Basilisk picture

Hi, PurpleHz. You just deleted this lizard picture from Common basilisk, noting that it was Corytophanes cristatus. I'm really embarrassed, to make that sort of error. In truth, though, my expertise is among inverts, not herptiles. May I ask, though, are you quite sure? The caption in the old Lydekker, the source of the picture, has it as "Helmeted Basilisk", which is now C. cristatus, but the text indicates that the scientific name for the figured lizard is Basiliscus americanus. The reptile database has B. americanus as a synonym of B. basiliscus. That's why I put it on the Common basilisk page. Plus, it really looks like other illustrations of B. basiliscus that I've found, at least to my not-too-good eye. Thanks for your help. Tim Ross·^talk 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i'm not a specialist either ! The image seemed doutbful to me, so since it was named 'Helmeted Basilisk', I thought it was an error, so I've added the scientific name found on Corytophanes. It could have been a Common Basilisk, but after browsing several minutes on flickr and others, I couldn't be absolutely sure. If the source indicates Basiliscus americanus, then it's ok, but please mention it to the image, so there won't be any further debate. PS: you should have uploaded the new scan to Commons, so it could be available for all, there is an old scan here : Image:HelmetedBasiliskLyd.jpg. Thank you for correcting my mistake ! Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll go ahead and put it back, and add an expanded note on the image page. (It is on Commons, by the way.) Tim Ross·^talk 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bengalia article

Hi. In the future, be aware that edits originating from 89.1.xxx.xxx are all treated as sockpuppets of already-banned accounts, and can be deleted on sight - if you see them, then please go ahead and delete them. I think it only antagonizes him more if I'm the only editor removing his postings. Dyanega (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert de Mowbray

Hi. I have the DNB article as a Word doc on my PC. Have you an e-mail address that I can send it to? Dposte46 (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I have just sent an e-mail with an attachment to the address that you gave. Let me know if you didn't get it. Dposte46 (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I got it and replied by mail :-) PurpleHz (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Lapwing

I did get permission from the authors to use that picture, but will do the necessary. JMK (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

White-chinned Sapphire

I have un-done your removal of the photo for above mentioned species. Please read the text I added after the photo. Notice also several things that easily identifies it as a female White-chinned Emerald, e.g. faint blue throat-speckling, coppery-tinged rump contrasting with dark tail, coppery-tinged crissum, etc. As you presumable are not familiar with the Sombre Hummingbird, there are photos of that species on Arthur Grosset's page here. 212.10.84.45 (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yellow-eared Woodpecker

I have also undone your edit for this species on commons. Again, notice several things that easily identifies it as a Yellow-eared Woodpecker: Yellow nape, faint back-streaking, faint whitish facial streaks and relatively uniform reddish crown. As you presumable are not familiar with the White-spotted Woodpecker, there are photos of that species on Arthur Grosset's page here. 212.10.84.45 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ecuadorian hummingbirds

Yes, they're fine. Essentially everything from the long list I made here can be assumed to be fine. I haven't looked at this flickr users photos from Costa Rica yet, but based on his Ecuadorian photos it is fair to that assume most – of not all – are ok. I haven't looked at the Unidentified Trochilidae recently, but suspect it only contains various illustrations that are near-impossible to identify and various US species (I mainly deal with Neotropicals). I'll check it out later just in case. • Rabo³ • 13:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

coming later today

but did you ask more than one of us--I don't want to send what has already been sent. DGG (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Btw, to my knowledge, you are the only wikipedian proposing to provide articles. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Luminy_All_Stars

What did you mean joke? Please don't blank articles you didn't create. If it's a hoax then it need to be put in articles for deletion. Gigs (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, it's a hoax. Just google it ;) PurpleHz (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luminy_All_Stars I filed it in afd for you. Gigs (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hummingbird

See Stripe-tailed Hummingbird. 212.10.69.24 (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Kneading

In point of fact, kneading can be and is done with mixers eqipped with dough hooks, both at home and in bakeries. Beastiepaws (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

de Clare article

I agree with you that much more can be done with the De Clare article. The French version is very complete. Would you be able to undertake the English version here? My lack of the language would unable me to do a very good job. Also, shouldn't the headline be "de Clare" and not "De Clare" Mugginsx (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugginsx (talk • contribs)

You're right, it's 'de Clare'. I'm very busy on the fr-wiki, and I'm not willing to participate on the en-wiki. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you anyway. Mugginsx (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

de Clare edit

Thanks for straightening out the recent error in the de Clare article. Will look for more modern sources. Mugginsx (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you can look here. There is an interesting piece of text from Michael Altschul, 'A Baronial Family in Medieval England: The Clares, 1217-1314', The Johns Hopkins press, Baltimore, 1965. You can look at http://www.oxforddnb.com if you can login. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, as always you are full of great information! Again, I will memorialize on my talk page and I will look at these sources! Regards to you. Mugginsx (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The subscription for the Oxford DNB is way over my budget, I live in the U.S., but the other source is great.Mugginsx (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your editing in the de Clare article. Most especially, thanks to your suggestion that we look at the French article to which you seem to be the main editor. Due to your hard work on the french article, we finally now have a correct geneology of the family! If you see any more corrections to the geneology section I copied and "translated", please edit by all means. Mugginsx (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hummingbird

Finally got around checking this. It is a Steely-vented Hummingbird. I have requested a file-rename on commons. By the way, I just noticed this edit. Please note that it is not important how the author originally spelled the ending of the species name (the original spelling was actually æneus, but modified following ICZN art. 27). What is important is the Latin gender of the genus, as the species name usually has to be modified to match this (art. 34). For example, if Glaucis was feminine, the correct form would be aenea. However, the genus is masculine, meaning that the correct form is aeneus. If the author used the wrong form, it has to be modified (similarity if a species is moved from a genus that is masculine to a genus that is feminine or vice versa). • Rabo³ • 07:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to re-name de Clare article

It seems crazy to me - the whole idea. But whatever your opinion, would you please weigh in on this discussion? Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 15 The category is entitled Category: House of Clare. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding as to the meaning of the discussion - but what would you re-name the article? Mugginsx (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

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) 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Earl of Wigtown

Hi there. Have reverted your edits re: Earls of Douglas holding the title Earl of Wigtown. See here: [1] Robert II confirmed the sale of not just the comitatus, but also the title. It is in the Registrum magni sigilli regum Scotorum. Brendandh (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

My edits were referenced with a more valuable source than the one you mentionned above. See M. H. Brown's ODNB articles on the 3rd, 4th and 5th earls for confirmation. See also his The Black Douglases: war and lordship in late medieval Scotland, 1300–1455. It's only in the 1420s that the future 5th earl tried to adopt the style 'Earl of Wigtown'. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have Brown's book. It is a very good secondary source. I have here [2] a primary source. I cannot find an online volume I of the Registrum Magni Sigilli Scotorum which will have reference to the 1372 sale by Fleming to Archibald the Grim, but this is volume 2, and act 13 on the 8th of January 1424 clearly refers to "Archibaldi, comitis de Wygtoun". These are copies of contemperaneous Chancery records, edited by the James Balfour Paul, Lord Lyon King of Arms. Hard copy of which can be viewed here [3]. Further, the scholar Herbert Maxwell, whom wrote the book cited in my first comment, 'A History of the House of Douglas', was the MP for Wigtownshire for 26 years, and thereafter Lord Lieutenant there for 32 years, so I would think if he were here today, he may have something to say about his value as a source! Cheers Brendandh (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're not willing to follow the work of a modern professionnal historian for a primary source and a century-old study, than we are no more in the encyclopedic sphere. If Brown doesn't credit The Grim with that title, than he must have good reason(s) and since we must only use reliable and relevant sources, than we should follow his work. Unless of course you can find a secondary source as recent and as valuable as Brown's which would say the contrary, and in this case we would have to mention the two opinions. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"Edward, Elector Palatine" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Edward, Elector Palatine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Edward, Elector Palatine until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)