Talk:Prince Waldemar of Schaumburg-Lippe

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The article is not clear. How can Mario Max be both the son AND the stepson of Gertraud-Antonia Wagner-Schöppl??

for clarification: Mario Max was adopted in 2001 by Helga-Lee Roderbourg, the widow of Waldemars 2nd cousin Prince Max. Ever since he is called “Dr. Mario-Max Schaumburg-Lippe”. Then, in 2003 his mother marries Waldemar of Schaumburg-Lippe.

In Mario's case 'Schaumburg-Lippe' is a name, not a title. Supposedly Mario-Max has taken a third name: 'Prinz', therefore pretending to be 'Prinz Schaumburg Lippe' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.141.160 (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About today's revert: Prince Waldemar himself (or his adoptive son Mario-Max) has openly admitted to manipulating the article on himself: http://www.news4press.com/Prince-Waldemar-of-Schaumburg-Lippe-Wikipedia-CORRECTIONS-N_611963.html. This violates Wikipedia:BIO. Furthermore, the statements are patent falsehoods.––79.207.141.39 (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

number 961 in line of succession to the British throne

Should this article not be deleted alltogether? I really can't see the point of such a biography. Why is he even considered to be notable? 95.151.234.182 (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC) I would strongly support such a move. I see no enlightenment for mankind in this w**king of a bunch of buffoons. What a waste of webspace! L'Etranger (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False mallicous entries oviously by oponent of Prince Waldemar an oviously jellous Prince Alexander and his friends

About Prince Waldemar, Princess Antonia, Prince Mario-Max and Princess Eleonore Christine articles get deleted or content gets destroyed by always the same persons oviously acting for the self proclaimed pseudo "head of the family" which is not under any circumstance for the mentioned. Prince Alexander gets extended promotion articles and mentionings in Wikipedia despite having married a commoner Mrs. Nadja Zöks, even wrongly written name in wikipedia! Also different government entities investigate obviously about the self proclaimed head of the family which he is not but obviously donations and alikes make it possible that promotion articles about Prince Alexander establish but others are slammed in Wikipedia which is perfectly used abusive and as a gossip plattform. ALso the genealogy of Prince Waldemar has never been added, whose mother is the princess of Denmark, but at Prince Alexander the genealogy is extensively promoted, his mom is only a baroness. Way below royalty of Prince Waldemar. All about the reputable Prince Waldemar is noted non notable or suggested for deletion: Maybe by the promotional user Prince Alexander himself? Books of author Prince Waldemar are even promoted in TV commercials and therefore his name is no nom de plume at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.91.173.130 (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, wikipedia is no promotion tool, but an excyclopedia.

Saying, one member (or not? I didn´t find Prince Alexander here...) had "the influence" to write ore delete informations on his personal demand does question the whole wikipedia.

You will have any author against you if you claimed that honestly.

But what I see is that you intend to use this platform for your own purposes, quite unsuccessful, if you don´t mind me saying.

If you want to promote the non-born but adopted or married members of a certain branch to be more present in the internet, why don´t you set advertisements?

Stay with the truth and prove what you say.

As long as it is relevant, no one will delete it.

And... please learn to sign your comments and to keep the obviously unhideable subjectivity shut.

--Fridastauffen (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Could anyone please tell me how on earth it should be possible to even approach members of the Wikipedia community in order to bribe them? Anybody with an entry of his own (such as Prince Alexander) would run the risk of being publicly torn to shreds by the very people he's trying to reach out to. Preposterous. --Tkvu (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

he was on the millor matchmaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.90.3 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]