User talk:FactStraight/Archive 5

Correct your own mistakes retard.

Correct your own mistakes retard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.64.11 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Our favourite battleground

Regarding the template:

1. Marie de Bourbon is irrelevant as she, married the son of a king.
2. Links to Francoise of Lorraine
3. Françoise d'Alençon dead before the rank was even created. Same for Jeanne d'Albret, Queen of Navarre.
4. Marie d'Estouteville married into the Longueville line.
5. de Lorraine-Guise, of Lorraine. Did you not argue for this yourself in previous cases?
6. Françoise d'Orléans-Longueville? Mademoiselle de Longueville is acceptable.
7. Link to Claire-Clémence de Maillé-Brézé.
8. Marie Thérèse de Bourbon-Condé? Look at the link.
9. Capitalisation of légitimée de France.
10. Françoise Marie de Bourbon was a grand daughter of France NOT a princess of the blood
11. Marie Anne de Bourbon-Conti?
12. Louise Élisabeth de Bourbon-Condé? Look at the link.
13. Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti? Look at the link.
14. Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre? Look at the link.

Why make everything an arguement. The rank was created during the reign of Henri IV to ensure that fellow Bourbon's could have a hight rank than that of mere nobles. Blocked or not, this is an anonymous IP and people can still make contributions. Signatures are a clear indication of what ones name was. It is not difficult to understand. Grow up. Why edit an encycopedia when you clearly maintain on using the wrong information.

Signed, The Infamous, yet correct, LouisPhilippeCharles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.64.11 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Grow up

Goshthisisstupid (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding LouisPhilippeCharles' wikilink

Thank you for your explanation to why it was necessary for you to delete the wikilinks he made to Hedvig Catharina De la Gardie. However, that article actually excists also in Italian language wikipedia: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedvig_Catharina_De_la_Gardie - and thereby it should be linked. How should that problem be solwed? It must after all be linked. Would it be correct if I made the wikilink? --Aciram (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I have no problem with it being linked (although, please note that this vandal is globally banned from all Wikipedias -- not just English Wikipedia, because he has done the same thing to royalty and nobility articles on several non-English Wikis). But we should delay the link a few days and then, please feel free to add it back. The point is to prevent LouisPhilippeCharles proving that, if he continues to try, he can pit one Wiki editor against another and get his edits retained on Wikipedia. He must learn that, as long as he is indefinitely blocked, his edits, whether good or bad, will always be deleted eventually. He could get un-blocked by abstaining from editing Wikipedia completely, including anons and socks, for six months -- but he is too addicted to editing royalty articles to stay away more than a day or two at a time. One day he will give up -- if we don't give up first. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. I understand perfectly, and I will act accordingly. It is difficult for me to identify this user, but I shall try to keep this in mind for the future, if you revert a seeminlgy good edit, and assume that this is the explanation. Thank you for informing me about the correct way of adressing this. I will add the appropriate links myself in a few days. --Aciram (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see:

• User talk:HammyDoo#Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
• User talk:Templatier#Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

Have a look through the edit histories of the two new editors because I think you will find them interesting and possibly familiar. -- PBS (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Follow up: Both of them have been blocked as sock-puppets of LouisPhilippeCharles by DrKiernan who saw this edit and looked at the history of the page. -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#LouisPhilippeCharles -- PBS (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision?

Why this Undid revision 493121669 by 85.178.237.126 in the article Philippe, Duke of Vendôme? greetings --85.178.237.126 (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No explanation for edit in edit summary. FactStraight (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous reason. I have seen many pictures and commonscats set in the English Wikipedia and have never experienced a deletion. You triest not what you delete? --85.178.226.114 (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

When an anonymous poster who has never used the account to post before suddently makes an edit that only experienced editors know about, I suspect that the poster is violating Wikipedia's rules by maintaining more than one account. And when that user complains about the deletion on my talk page -- but has still not used that account to post other edits -- I am even more suspicious. If you don't want your edits deleted, explain them. FactStraight (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm logged in as an IP only because my Wikimedia Commons account to EN-WP does not work. In all other languages ​​my user name logged-korrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.236.183 (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Enredados

Regards this edit it is unclear to me do you think that User:Enredados is a sock of user:Tfoxworth? I thought it might be a sock of User:LouisPhilippeCharles. See my comment User talk:Enredados. Could Tfoxworth and LouisPhilippeCharles be one and the same? -- PBS (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. The edit above is me deleting an edit by an anon used by LouisPhilippeCharles on the grounds that he is indefinitely blocked, so all of his edits are subject to automatic deletion without regard to content: His usual M.O. is to make "constructive" edits (typos, factual corrections, etc) along with his substantive edits highlighting royal trivia, hoping that admins and royalty editors agree that his "improvements" are warranted, and reverse my deletions thereof -- thereby pitting me against them and keeping his edits intact in defiance of the block. User:Enredados may be another sock of LouisPhilippeCharles, but regardless continues to make hundreds of edits without citations, and so they're subject to deletion. Because I wasn't sure if he's a sock, I didn't at first delete them. But his edits under anons like User:83.52.122.77 proliferated and Enredados stopped confining their edits to the Ruspoli family, adding unsourced changes to unrelated royalty articles -- indistinguishable from those of LouisPhilippeCharles. LouisPhilippeCharles is an English university student, user:Tfoxworth posts from the States but hasn't vandalized Wikipedia lately. The latter was, unfortunately, ill-treated by some other posters when he first boldly edited Wikipedia royalty articles, lashed out in response, and began vandalizing out of protest against being indef blocked. LouisPhilippeCharles is a royalty trivia buff for whom editing articles about them on Wikipedia is a consuming addiction (otherwise he would have stayed away long enough to get unblocked). He's banned, as you know, not only on English Wikipedia, but from most Euro wikies because of his POV edits and disregard for Wiki policies. It is the proliferating vandalism of LouisPhilippeCharles that can be reduced by blocking his socks and anons. So thanks. FactStraight (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverting

Probably not I respect what you're saying, but if a blocked/banned user takes my revert as some kind of implicit endorsement of his actions, that just means that he doesn't get it and needs to understand. Since that line of argument won't be effective toward him getting unblocked/unbanned, then he will also learn that if he tries to use that line of reasoning. If anything, I feel like this can only be a positive, honestly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

How do you say 'Quack' in French?

I think we have a DUCK loose on History of the French line of succession, but I am out of reverts. I assume you had a reason for suggesting a sock - one good enough to take to WP:SPI, and to earn temporary semi-protection? Agricolae (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI case and would appreciate you comments on the original revert. Agricolae (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

R&N Userbox

Hello, FactStraight! 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) 11:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Electoral and Palatinate edits

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Hmm. Hundreds of edits to articles since January, all trying to change the way that English refers to the Palatine lands of electors and to the titles of the various Counts and Princesses Palatine? Made by User:-Ilhador- -- and many anons? And, curiously, also made recently by User:HammyDoo; like this one and this one and this one. HammyDoo admitted on his talk page, before being blocked for sockpuppetry and vandalism, that he wants his old account as LouisPhilippeCharles un-blocked because half of his edits have been reverted. And let's not ignore the blocked sock of LouisPhilippeCharles who showed the same pre-occupation with the same Palatine family of royals, Moonpig12345, who got reverted for it here. Why hello, LouisPhilippeCharles! I've been wondering where the other half of your unconstructive edits were hiding. Now I know... FactStraight (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring against -Ilhador-

While I do understand that you think -Ilhador- is a sock of LPC, and that you would be exempted from Edit warring restrictions if he was, I must ask you to stop until a reasonable connection can be made to LPC. I have left further comment on LPC's SPI and I will try to help you resolve this as fast as possible. In the mean time, you need to stop reverting him, or I can not protect you from a block. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not "LouisPhilippeCharles"; I haven't the slightest idea who or what that is

The edits I made to Alfonso XII and Luis Mayans y Enriquez de Navarra were completely accurate; here is the genealogical website that shows the ancestry of Enrique Puigmolto y Mayans: http://ortizdepinedo.com/f3753.htm#f20939 A simple google search will show the alleged father of Alfonso was named Puigmolto y Mayans. I am a genealogist and an historian (one of my favorite books, one I have owned and read for 10 years now, is Lines of Succession by Jiri Louda and Michael Maclagan, among other genealogy books and sources), and I realize I may have made those edits rather unorthodoxly; but I assure you they are accurate, regardless; there was no such man as "Enrique Puig y Molto." Seeing that inaccurate info in Alfonso's biography is disturbing to this historian-genealogist! (and I've no idea what source is used to say his father may have been an American dental student-when I first read that I was taken by surprise!) I did not log in to my wikipedia account when I made the edits, that is why my IP address was, and is showing. And I can assure you I am not "LouisPhilippeCharles" or whoever or whatever that character may be. Hopefully this message clears up what seems to be a terrible confusion! (I am still somewhat of a novice in editing wikipedia, so I apologize for any harm I may have caused or I continue to be caused! I have quite a knowledge of history and genealogy, and I just wanted to help out!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.33.104 (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. FactStraight (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nor am I louisphillipecharles

So do not accuse me of sockpuppetry. Judging by your edit history, you seem to think that every other editor on wiki is a sock of this guy.89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for that error. FactStraight (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusations AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

FactStraight, the specific issue is that it is being asked whether or not you throw around the accusation of sockpuppetry too freely. I appreciate the trouble you've had with LouisPhillipeCharles and his army of socks, but I'm worried your ability to discern non-ducks from ducks is being affected by the long-running issues with LPC. I hope you participate in the discussion at AN/I, because what I've seen has made me more worried for you than about you. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the AN/I thread has been archived, I just want to follow up by saying that I think your proposed compromise is an excellent and elegant solution. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles monomania ?

LouisPhilippeCharles everywhere ? Who's this elusive character ? Your mischievous Doppelganger ? It seems you're seeing LPC everywhere and have much fun in reverting texts by other editors when they don't suit your hagiographic style of writing. This practice is close to sheer vandalism. When a text is properly written with the required sources why revert it ? You seem so fond of "decent" royal families narratives. Fine but but well, History is not hagiography !!! Read the Letters of the Princesse Palatine and you'll see much of what she wrote really ran against the grain of "decency" common to much of 17th-18th centuries court literature. AE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerecinski (talk • contribs) 22:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Sir, Judging by your edit history, you seem to think that every other editor on wiki is a sock of LPC. You dare talk of uncivil behavior but how should one qualify your stubborn reverting and total lack of dialogue when anything written by someone else in the articles that you seem to consider your property goes beyond the limits of your hagiographic type of writing ? Your visions of a biography and what should be in it are it seems mostly determined by this very narrow vision of what's "proper" i.e. Victorian inspired genealogical writing. You don't seem to care at all about the time invested by other editors in writing their texts... that seems to be totally out of your concerns. So please do not talk again about "civil" behavior... for there is really nothing civil in your attitude. Aerecinski to StraightFact (alias LouisPhilippeCharlesFoe ?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerecinski (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Aerecinski "source"

Per this edit[1], user:Aerecinski uses this source,"Correspondance de Madame duchesse d'Orléans. Extraite des lettres publiées par M. de Ranke et M. Holland. Traduction et notes par Ernest Jaeglé. A, Quantin, Paris, 1880, vol.2, pp. 133-137[2]

Do you see anything that supports the addition of this sentence,"Notoriously promiscuous, the young widowed princess had hidden several pregnancies and the autopsy revealed her to be again with child, only three months after suffering a very laborious delivery. Elisabeth Charlotte was infinitely pained by Berry's death and horrified by what she learned of her debauchery.??

Since this is a primary source, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.(original research) which is not itself explicitly contained in the primary source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not seen anything beyond the citation of the primary source, so if that quote is not contained therein, it sounds like original research whose inclusion in the article is not justified. Thank you for bringing that point to my attention. FactStraight (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but go back to the Elizabeth Charlotte wiki piece : it is very poorly referenced in general and if I had more time I would rewrite entirely and give it the proper historical sources it requires. Encyclopedia doesn't mean cheap generic standardized poorly informed writing. You don't have to be a specialist to read the Palatine letters since we are not talking here about "the original letters" but a well-commented edition of a selection of the letters. And since I wanted this section to be brief I didn't quote well known biographies on the Palatine, eg. by Arlette Lebigre "La princesse Palatine" (1986) who makes exactly the same comments about Berry's death. So, no sorry there is no "original research" in this short paragraph on Berry's death which just summarizes a very well-known story... at least for people who know that period of Frenc history and have read about the French Regency....which doesn't seem to be the case for you and "Kansas Bear"... Aerecinski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerecinski (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

I have added the comments on the discussion page. Please remove the inaccuracies in the article. Please help the assessment of the Shah's regime from a liberal democratic view point. Shah's fascism was responsible for the extreme reactions towards the opposite side in today's Iran. Only a balanced liberal democracy can help Iran and the world. Artaxerex (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate and share your commitment to "a liberal democratic view point". But Wikipedia's policies on balance, fairness and neutrality do not allow us to impose judgment from that sole perspective on articles. My edit did not remove your substantive assessment of the Shah's regime, but made sure that other interpretations are not excluded. FactStraight (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Rainier III

Hi, FactStraight,

Just as something to consider: I'm not entirely sure that describing Rainier III as being of French, Mexican, Spanish, German, Scottish, English, Dutch, and Italian ancestry isn't a bit misleading. It suggests a sort of equality of ancestors between the various nationalities that doesn't exist: for example, his "Mexican" ancestry consists only of a grandmother born in Mexico to Spanish parents. He has a great-grandmother born on Martinique; we ignore that; his mother was born in Algeria, yet we don't list his ancestry as Algerian; he's a Merode descendant yet we don't mention Belgium. Nor do we bother to mention the fact that some of his ancestors were born in Monaco! Perhaps a better formulation could be devised? Something like "Rainier III has ancestors born in France, England, Spain, Germany (Baden), Mexico, Belgium, Scotland, The Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Algeria, Monaco, and Martinique." (And I think we have to reach Sosa # 433 before we encounter an ancestor actually born in the Netherlands.) One wonders where to stop, of course, and how significant the information is in any case... - Nunh-huh 03:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing relevant information to my attention with respect to the recent Rainiar III edits. I responded to the fact that in a list of national ancestries, it appeared that the only one being deleted was the non-European ancestry. Since racial attitudes were and are relevant to social status, and the article provides Rainiar's ancestry because monarchs are traditionally at the apex of hereditary status in the Western social hierarchy, I would deem evidence of possible non-European ancestry in a Euro monarch notable. But in this case, had the background you provide accompanied the edit, I might have left a citation request instead of reverting. I like the list of ancestral birth sites you suggest as a more precise alternative. FactStraight (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, if there were genuine non-European ancestry I'd be right there with you! I think part of my problem with the original formulation is that it suggests Mexican ethnicity rather than mere citizenship. So I will add the change to the article as less misleading in that respect, though perhaps too much information :) - Nunh-huh 00:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Alessandro Torlonia, 5th Prince of Civitella-Cesi

On Alessandro Torlonia, 5th Prince of Civitella-Cesi, I've removed the "morganatic marriage" category. Your edit summary ("his kids by Infanta had no rights to Spanish throne") may be perfectly true (I believe that she renounced her rights of succession), but that wouldn't per se make this a morganatic marriage. A morganatic marriage is one where the children cannot inherit the husband's titles (and generally can inherit a title granted to the wife upon marriage). That the marriage was not morganatic can be seen by the fact that a child of the marriage succeeded to the father's title of Prince of Civitella-Cesi! Of course, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if you have some information to the contrary. - Nunh-huh 10:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

On the general issue of morganatic marriage: the prevalent notion in English-language sources that a morganatic marriage was between a titled man and an untitled woman, denying she and their progeny his status and titles is overly narrow. First, morganatic marriage is not a gender-specific concept. if children can inherit (non-monetary valuables) from a female but are deprived of that inheritance because the marriage fails to meet family norms, it meets the criteria for morganatic marriage: Famous examples of morganatic husbands are Count Adam von Neipperg and Agustín Fernando Muñoz, 1st Duke of Riánsares. Secondly, morganatic marriage usually refers to dynastic inheritance only -- not money (except civil list), not private property, and not mere noble titles. Principe di Civitella Cesi is a title of the nobility, so of course progeny wouldn't forfeit it by their parents' marrying morganatically, even if it were the Principe (rather than the Infanta) marrying in defiance of family norms. Thirdly, the consequences of morganatic marriages vary widely from dynasty to dynasty, country to country and era to era, so it isn't true that morganatic issue are always denied the dynastic parent's title: Princess Alexandra of Greece, Prince Alexander of Belgium, Prince Frederick Henry of Nassau and Prince Pedro Gastão of Orléans-Braganza are examples of children of morganatic marriages who were allowed to bear dynastic titles -- but lacked succession rights. And what about Countess Luise Karoline von Hochberg? Never acknowledged as Grand Duchess of Baden during the reign of her husband, she is regarded as his morganatic wife -- despite the fact that her son was recognized as heir-eventual during her life-time and later succeeded as Grand Duke Leopold I. All that is clearly agreed upon is that a marriage is morganatic if at least some of the prerogatives retained by dynastic wives and offspring are denied to non-dynastic wives or offspring -- but which prerogatives has always been left up to the dynasty in question. On the specific issue of Infanta Beatriz de Borbon's marriage to Alessandro Torlonia-Civitella, the fact that she renounced her succession rights (but not her title) may seem confusing -- as though the issue have no rights because of the renunciation rather than the unequal marriage. But that isn't so because Spain's dynastic law at the time (Pragmatic Sanction of 1776) was quite specific: even when an unequal marriage is approved by the monarch, the issue are non-dynastic. No one has ever claimed that Beatriz's marriage was dynastic, or that her renunciation was for any reason but unequal marriage (the renunciations of Beatriz, her sister Infanta Maria Cristina {who married a newly-minted "Count Marone" in 1940} and of their brother, Infante Jaime, Duke of Segovia, who married the daughter of a duke in 1935, were all exacted at the time of their marriages by King Alfonso XIII in exile -- whereas no renunciation by their brother Don Juan, Count of Barcelona, who wed a dynastic Bourbon princess in 1935, was sought or obtained). Such renunciations by dynastic princesses were common in monarchies which allowed women to transmit succession rights only upon equal marriage, even if the husband had a ducal or princely title ("All members of the [Romanov] dynasty who married someone not of royal blood were obliged to sign a document renouncing their rights to the throne. Although Irina was very distant in the line of succession, she had to comply with this regulation before marrying me; but it did not seem to worry her very much." Lost Splendor by Prince Felix Yussopov, 1953, chapter XVIII). Marlene Eilers' "Queen Victoria's Descendants", 1997, pp.117-118, states "Carlos III wanted to prevent the possibility of descendants of Spanish noble families from succeeding to the throne. Because the right of succession was shared by men and women, the burden of marrying royal fell to the Infantas, as well...King Juan Carlos's two sisters, Infantas Pilar and Margarita, also lost their rights when they married members of the Spanish aristocracy. They and their aunts retained their royal status and remain members of the Spanish royal family...King Juan Carlos's cousins and nieces and nephews, are considered to be members of the king's family, but are not members of the Royal Family." And Francisco Zorrilla's Genealogia de la Casa de Borbon de Espana, 1971, pp. 204-205, states of Beatriz,"Previa renuncia a los derechos sucesorios eventuales a la Corona de Espana, caso morganaticamente en Roma en la Basilica de Santa Maria in Trastevere, el dia 14 de enero de 1935, con Don Alejandro de Torlonia, Principe de Civitella Cessi." I'll add the cites and put this notation on the talk page. FactStraight (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I still believe you've adopted an extremely broad view of what constitutes "morganatic", (having been misled by the extreme sloppiness with which it is applied by many genealogists), but I don't think it's a large enough point to fight over :). However, if you'd like to read a bit on what I consider the more accurate and nuanced view of types of marriages, dynastic and non-dynastic, you might enjoy looking at <http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/g_morganat.htm>. - Nunh-huh 01:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Hello, I'm Josh Gorand. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Josh Gorand (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pedro III of Portugal

I was amazed and outraged once I learned that Qwyrxian closed the move request for Pedro III of Portugal claiming lack of consensus.[3] Twelve editors supported the move and only four opposed. I complained to him about how unfair and absurd was his action and that he should accept the will of the vast majority or at least reopen the move request. I'd like to ask you to share your thoughts about it on his talk page. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, this is a mass-produced message which means it may duplicate a message already on your Talk:page. As a result of the lack of reference to specific sources or guidelines such as WP:SOVEREIGN, User:Qwyrxian closed the RM at Talk:Peter III of Portugal but said a new RM could be started if new evidence was presented. This I have done after discussion with Qwyrxian and User:Lecen. This means that your previous support or oppose will not be counted, and must be resubmitted. However please note Qwyrxian's request that support/oppose be made with reference to specific arguments guidelines or sources, and (quote) especially recommend that people don't do the "Support per person X and Y", as such comments are close to useless, (unquote). Thanks for your time. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankopan Family

Please stop reverting edits on the House of Frankopan page and respect the judgment which provides authority that the present family members have the right to their names and titles. This judgment has executory force in other jurisdictions. Instead, you re-insert libellous information and reports by gossip.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Official Lists (talk • contribs) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your concerns to me on this matter. Please address them in the relevant talk page section, where specific issues have been raised and consensus can be reached, before further reverting to unsourced or inadequately sourced assertions. FactStraight (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Times link is live but a small fee must be paid to access the contents of The Times and you have to identify yourself. This link contains an apology and a clarification that the present Frankopan family has the right to their name and titles. The Italian Court relied on available genealogical tables. The princely title was confirmed by Sigismund on 21 April 1423 (Staatsarchiv, Vienna, dok.1425, 119.16) RufusR seems to have some personal problems with this family. Comment added by Official Lists (talk • contribs) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)<!

By adding 'disputed section' someone is adding a slur to the family, in spite of historical evidence. Official Lists (talk • contribs) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)<!

Stop re-inserting 'disputed section' as this is a slur on a living family. What the commentator presents as 'facts' disputing the legal rights of the present family are lies and insults, based on some personal grudge the person seems to have against this family. Comment added by Official Lists (talk • contribs) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)<!

Zulu Royal Family

I don't know if you're aware that TiffanySolis added a new member of the Zulu Royal Family just last Oct. 22, 2012. The person she added is named Brynnan Honore-Taylor. I've seen people add comments that she is a fake and it seems you remove this comment. I also noticed that you have contributed a lot to royals so I'm assuming you are not TiffanySolis who has only done one thing on wikipedia, which is to add Brynnan's name. Please know that a whole community is aware that Brynnan Honore-Taylor is a fictitious character. Perhaps you can simply delete her name from there. Otherwise, lots of other people will keep adding comments and you'll just have to keep changing it back. If you can show proof that Brynnan is indeed a member of the Zulu Royal Family, then please add it. But there is overwhelming evidence on Facebook that she is not a member of the Zulu Royal Family and is simply using the entry on wikipedia for fraudulent purposes.

184.13.40.60 (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Just the facts

Your name came up

You were mentioned in connection with Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall at WP:Teahouse. Just FYI; I don't think there's anything you need to respond to. GaramondLethe 06:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Might I bother you for a minute?

Hi mate, User:PBS suggested I have a chat to you about User:Enredados. Please see here and here for background. Would appreciate your thoughts. Cheers, Stalwart111 23:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC).

I concur with PBS that edits made by User:Enredados continue to closely resemble those of indefinitely blocked LouisPhilippeCharles: lots of trivial edits to articles on living and dead royalty that are not sourced or under-sourced and which often ignore MOS. Some of his past edit summaries & talk comments don't seem typical of LouisPhilippeCharles -- but the latter is notorious for attempting to disguise his identity in order to avoid having his edits reverted. I thought PBS was pursuing a global ban of LouisPhilippeCharles, given his known habit of vandalizing other Wikipedias? FactStraight (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Number Categorization

Did you try removing some of the categorizing methods of User:Kauffner a while back ago similar to the ones found in Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom? Do you know how I can get them to reverted without me hunting down every single one of them and reediting them?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't think I was involved in that one. FactStraight (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Gustav S-W-B/Succession/Robin of S-W-B

You are incorrect in your assertion that marrying outside of House law only removes descendents from the line of succession and not the individual. The act of marrying outside of House law, as did Prince Robin, by action alone ("durrch den Akt an siche") does so for both the individual and his/her descendents. You may be confusing German law and German House law with Swedish law, or possibly that of Denmark. German law and German House law are two separate processes, and both must be adhered to. I am reverting your edits to the appropriate pages; please leave them as such. PR (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to you on the talk page of the article in question. FactStraight (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)