Jump to content

User talk:KingQueenPrince/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

KingQueenPrince, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi KingQueenPrince! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. We hope to see you there!

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"[/[Category:Wikipedia users who received a Teahouse invitation]/]"


Message from Qctc (talk) (contribs)

Hi-I added links to local cemeteries because I felt that many people who had an interest in a particular locality might want to investigate geneological info about past residents. Cemeteries are a treasure trove of local history...that was my thinking. Qctc (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that your intentions are good and that you are acting in good faith, but that external link does not belong in those articles for several reasons. If you had added to an article that was about the cemetery, then maybe it would be relevant. Wikipedia is not a link farm or a promotional medium, it is an encyclopedia and nothing more. Adding the same link to several articles is considered External Link Spamming. Here is just part of the links to avoid when adding external links:
"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked." (emphasis added).
In this case, adding an external link to a Find-a-Grave Website to those articles (especially doing so only in an "External Links Section") is inappropriate because the subjects of the articles were about towns, which is much more general than cemeteries located in those towns. The Links you added were inappropriate for other reasons too. I suggest following these links and reading about: External Links, Links to be avoided, and External Link Spamming, it will help you better understand when to add external links. Any more questions, let me know. Cheers Mate. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, KingQueenPrince, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Cnilep (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diner lingo. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Cnilep (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've left contact information on River's talk page. Please refer to that on how to contact me.

If you do not wish to talk to me, then I'll pursue legal action against yourselves, named as defendants, and against Wikipedia for violating first amendment rights. If this is systematically happening, which I am being told it is and didn't believe it, then I'll be sure to have Wikipedia shut down and have it's owner's responsible in a civil suit.

Please forward your contact information to my email, all of it. Please include your name, your occupation, and phone numbers for my lawyers.

The people of this country deserve to know how we're being represented online, and that the restrictions are not limited to just anyone... I had heard that you were disallowing content changes that weren't in reference to oneself. Now, to find out you're disallowing content changes on ourselves... This scares me.

I am clearly stunned this is happening in this country.

I will publicly declare my withdrawal for support of both Romney and Obama in the coming election, and explain why on the Tonight Show in the next week. We clearly need someone in office who is more responsible for supporting freedom, and who is technically savvy enough to explain these issues.

Brian has just become my #1 candidate, he'll clearly do something to create public trust and open communication.

Contact me at my office this week, I'll be waiting for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Douglas.Muir (talk • contribs) 06:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what I get for trying to go too fast. Notified 3 suspected sockpuppet Users about a sockpuppetry case using the template, copy and pasting, and forgot the 4 tildes on the first one, so therefore didn't have it on t he next 2. My bad. (and, yes, I know I'm responding to a bot, lol) King of Nothing (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Did it again when i gave courtesy notices for a sockpuppet investigation. King of Nothing (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

I just looked at your edits and you seem to be quite the solid editor. When you get a few more edits under your belt, give me a shout and we'll see if we cant get you rollbacker permissions.

One thing: You really should start archiving your talk page instead of blanking it. While it's technically allowed, it gives folks a bad feeling - like you're trying to hide something (which I doubt you are). Feel free to steal the code in my talk page to have it done automatically or to do it manually. Just a suggestion.

Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the rollbacker permissions could definitely come in handy against obvious vandalism (when I have more experience). I stole the code from your talk page to start archiving. I'm gonna try and figure out how to add all the previous content that's only in the Page Edit History into the Archive. Cheers Mate, With Thanks As Always, King of Nothing (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
One more thing. You might find Wikipedia:Twinkle to be a very useful tool. You can start using it now if you want. Just use it carefully. Toddst1 (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks, will do. King of Nothing (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Message from Scéal-Nua

Edit problem

I have a problem editing the page "Norman Invasion of Ireland" I have done a whole lot of work using primary sources but I have so far failed to find a secondary source to back it up... Even though I do not understand this policy, I wish to comply. I would like to post up my work without being edit warred. When I first did the work, I was not aware of the policy, but now that I am looking at it, I have become aware of the fact that I have a problem. At the moment I do not have money to spend on books. Do you know of an online source regarding the subject of the Norman Invasion of Ireland that uses the Annals of Ulster and Annals of the Four Masters as sources? Perhaps I could use that and comply with policy. I would like help so that I can post up my story, tell the whole truth, comply with policy and avoid being edit warred. Any pointers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scéal-Nua (talk • contribs) 00:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've undone my revert and returned the article to the way you had it. As far as answering your question, as there is a lot to answer I'm going to take it one at a time. I want to preface this by saying that I believe your intentions are good and I agree that the article is lacking (these 2 facts more than anything is why I just undid my revert). The best way to get done what you want to do in a manner that adheres to policy and avoids being repeatedly reverted is to do exactly what you did: talk to the person who reverted it in a respectful manner and explain the situation. Even if you are right in the situation, just reverting back each time someone reverts you is edit warring and is strictly prohibited and will most likely result in you being blocked (even if you were right to undo the revert). Now to your main question about the article itself and how to get appropriate sources: Unfortunately, on this question I don't really have any great advise. I've undid my revert with the hope that others will come along and help build upon and improve the work you've already done (although with this article, based on it's edit history, I doubt it will happen any time soon). Right now I don't really have the time to go on my own to find the needed secondary sources, maybe sometime this weekend I will try to find some sources for you to use. I have to warn you though, just because I put the information you added back in doesn't mean that someone else won't come along and just take it out again.
I'd suggest also to look at related articles that cover some of the same information and look at the sources they use. These links may help with regard to Wikipedia Policy on Sourcing: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Finding sources. One tip in general: I, like a lot of editors, refrain from contributing to articles about subjects that we're very familiar with, as it causes us to add information that we believe we "know" is true, instead of adding information that is Verifiable and properly sourced. I'll try to find you some sources and help you improve the article. If you have any more questions, need any help, or have any more problems with people reverting your work, let me know. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

go maith

OK... I appreciate the advice. I will go about trying to find that secondary source. Once I find it, I will attempt to complete the article with it. Later on I may add findings that I have made on my own research. However, I am also a bit short on time and so this may happen over the course of several days... advance apologies for any delays. If someone else deletes my work, I guess I will have to submit the case for arbitration, but I will not engage in edit warring. Although, with the improvements I have in mind, namely the adding of a secondary source or two, if not more, I doubt anyone would want to dispute it as I think it should cover all the relevant policies. OK, thanks again and happy editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scéal-Nua (talk • contribs) 00:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

... actually, there seem to be some pretty good sources listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_of_ulster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scéal-Nua (talk • contribs) 00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you have everything under control, I'll do my best to help. One thing though: If someone else does delete it, do not go immediately to the Arbitration Committee, as that should be one of the last steps in the Dispute Process and may result in action against you. First thing you should do if this happens is: talk to the person who reverted it (on their Talk Page) in a respectful manner and explain the situation, if that doesn't work then take the content dispute to the Article's Talk Page. King of Nothing (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Another thing

You seem to be the one who posted up a comment on my talk page about sock-puppetry... I think I know where this problem is coming from. I share this computer with a co-worker who has also done work on Wikipedia. However, he found that this was not the kind of environment for him and decided no longer to contribute. Since then, I have made my own account and hope to contribute valuable information, perhaps succeeding where my co-worker failed. However, I guess because of the IP address this has caused some kind of suspicion. I can assure that this is not sockpuppetry and that I am here to contribute, not cause trouble. I have written to some arbitrators about this and hope to clear my account. I will also tell my coworker to post up the retired tag on his account and see if that helps. Is there anything else I can do to clear my account of these accusations, avoid edit warring against me and contribute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scéal-Nua (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as the Sockpuppetry case goes, the actions you have already taken, prior to my reply, should be enough to prevent any action from being taken against you. Just beware that any vandalism from any of the accounts related to the sockpuppetry investigation, could result in action being taken against all the accounts. If the other two accounts remain inactive and/or retired their most likely won't be any problem. Sockpuppetry investigations aren't done solely to have any action taken, but to have a record that these accounts are connected: either because they are being used by the same exact person or used from the same computer. King of Nothing (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Done

It has been done... the former user has "retired" his account and I have requested that the arbitration committee view this new account as a "clean start" account... now, on with the task...

Problem

I apologize but my keyboard either doesn't have a key to put in tildes or I just don't know the trick... this is an old computer. If I can figure out how to use them, I will begin signing my posts. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scéal-Nua (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No Problem. Cheers Mate King of Nothing (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Found Something

Wow, that happened quicker than I thought... check this out and tell me if you think it will be an acceptable secondary source... I think it would

http://books.google.com/books?id=-ocDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scéal-Nua (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked at it: and Yes, it appears to be a great secondary source.

OK it is done

I have quickly reviewed the secondary source and found that it does indeed quote all of my primaries, including the Annals of Ulster, Four Masters and Giraldus Cambrensis, obviously considering them reliable. This should cover it. I edited the article and incorporated the citations. I believe now it should be verifiable by Wikipedia's standards. Let me know if there are any other improvements you can recommend or sources you would like to include. And if you want, go ahead and insert them yourself. I also plan to make a few small additions and corrections over the course of the next week or so, improve my work. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scéal-Nua (talk • contribs) 00:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Annie Ross

Hello, thanks for keeping an eye on that article. I wouldn't have wholesale reverted the edits by 81.151.87.186, however; I would have either done a Google search for the play and found sources for the edits (as I did) or added a {{fact}} tag. While it's good to avoid unsourced text in biographies of living people, many of the particulars about her life discussed in that edit were already mentioned in the rest of the article (and I've just added one), and the play is a reliable source for its plot. Above all, whether you intended it or not, it's not a good idea to revert an edit and add welcome templates to the editor's talk page as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened. Graham87 15:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I want to preface this with two comments: 1. I know absolutely nothing about Annie Ross (which to me is not necessarily a bad thing) and 2. It was about 3 AM last night, after a long day when I made that revert. However (as far as I can tell), the Article as you have written it is still not properly sourced. None of the Sources that you have cited show that the play actually took place. I have looked online and I have yet to find any evidence the play actually was done (only that it was planned for the end of July 2006 and Carrie Fisher may or may not appear in it as the lead). One can not use the play as a source of information (even as as Primary Source, which should include secondary sources as well) if it never actually took place and absolutely no evidence of its content are public (only vague pronouncements about what it may or may not contain). As everything on Wikipedia, especially Biographies of Living Persons, must be verifiable then I don't understand how this can remain on the article. Maybe I'm missing something?
And if it wasn't an IP User, I probably would have left a custom message on their User Page with why I reverted for now, until it could be verified either by me or others. But sometimes with IP addresses I will just use a custom welcome template that includes the warning about sources and verifiability (I do this half out of laziness and half out of the fact that in my experience Users like that usually don't make any more edits). King of Nothing (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC) With BLP Articles my natural reaction is to revert first if its an unsourced and unexplained addition or removal of content, and then when I have the time go and verify and add it back with sources if necessary. If it is a bad idea for me to do it like that in the future, let me know. Cheers Mate. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, there was nothing wrong with your edit there. You're not obligated to find sources for material other folks contribute. You're welcome to do so, but the burden of sourcing was on the contributor. You did fine. I may have done the exact same thing if I were in your shoes. Toddst1 (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I absolutely agree with everything you just said. Anyway, I'm more on the maintaining Wikipedia side (i.e. fighting vandalism and unsourced BLP additions) then I am on adding new content (at least to articles that have I zero interest in, like Annie Ross) Is it sad that I judge my success based on how many disruptive IPs, Registered Users, and socks I get blocked? lol. (only half-kidding, lol). Cheers, Mate. King of Nothing (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC) And I wanted to say thanks again for letting me know about Twinkle, it's definitely come in handy. King of Nothing (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I used to think the same way as you've just described about sources that say that something *will* happen in the near future, until I realised that if an event like that didn't go ahead, for whatever reason, that would have made even bigger news. I don't think the Internet is necessarily the best place to find sources about this play (and it's probably not that notable anyway), but this source that I used says that it was performed and this other source talks about its world premier (but doesn't say where or when it occurred).
On this we may have to just agree to disagree, as with sources covering small plays that are ways away from actually coming to fruition and assuming from them that it actually happened (as the sources imply that a cast hasn't even been decided yet, as they state maybe Carrie Fisher). Many plays and even movies, are announced like that and then later quietly dropped. The only evidence that I can find that the play might have actually been done is these two very minor and unreliable sources [[1]] [[2]] and they both imply that it ran for either one day or not at all. My point is just that putting anything in the article about this play is just not verifiable. But, I will defer to you and leave the article as is. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It was around midnight when I made those edits and I didn't notice the warnings about verifiability and reliable sources in your talk page message. But it'd be better to use a far more specific template message, like {{uw-biog1}}. There are many, many warning messages like that, and it's impossible to remember them all.
I'll try to be more precise with the warning templates, still getting use to using Twinkle. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, when you encounter unsourced text added to a biography of a living person, you should handle it carefully and probably revert it. But when somebody takes the trouble to write in literate English about a subject that isn't covered too well on Wikipedia, I just think their contribution should be respected and extra efforts should be taken to incorporate it properly. Graham87 01:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand completely that that is definitely better. What really jumped out at me at the time, and again it was very late, was the mention of heroin use, the fact that it was a BLP, the fact that it was unsourced, and that it was done by an unregistered IP User. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

University of Nicosia

Please allow all editing from user Uni_of_Nicosia. This should be the only user editing the page/info regarding University of Nicosia. The request is from the official webmaster of the university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uni of nicosia (talk • contribs) 07:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works as we are a collaborative community and everyone is free to edit any article constructively (unless they have a conflict of interest). See Conflict of Interest, one of the many policies your editing has violated. Do not just reinsert the material after several Users have explained why it needs to be removed. King of Nothing (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

April 2013

Huh? If you can't use an image talk page to discuss problems with the image, then what is the talk page for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.65.207 (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes. King of Nothing (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Keeping up the good work

As we discussed in November, I think you're doing good work here.

I've gone ahead and issued you rollback rights which we also discussed back then. Please be careful with the privilege - it can be easily lost. I recommend you carefully read up on the what you should do and should not do with rollback, then practice here before using it. I'm confident you'll use it wisely. If for some reason you don't want it, let me know and I'll remove it, but I'm about to sign off for a few days so that might have to wait.

You may wish to display {{User rollback}} on your user page. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mate. I'll make sure to use it wisely. Might take me a few days before I start using it regularly, took me a bit to get use to Twinkle. I've been off of Wikipedia for awhile but I hope to be on more now. Again, Thanks Mate. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Cohn-Bendit

Hi KingQueenPrince, please watch the video that is the reference to my change. I can provide translation to english, if it's necesary. This change is not POORLY SOURCED! Please watch it first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tofas1 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, KingQueenPrince. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It definitely needs a major re-write. The School's IT Department was trying to remove the only part of the article that didn't read like a brochure. King of Nothing (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

RE: IP User 75.80.134.142 (contribs • talk)

I see you have already reversed two typical disruptions of the Miser article by 75.80.134.142. In view of the fact that you gave him a 'final, final warning' just the other day, can you tell me whether you are now getting this defiant pest blocked? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

He probably should be blocked because of his numerous disruptive edits and his outright refusal to respond to any of the concerns that have been raised concerning his edits. He has already been blocked twice and is still making the exact same edits that caused him to previously be blocked. However, his editing is not outright/blatant vandalism, but is completely disruptive and subtle vandalism. Almost every one of his edits have been just immediately reverted by various people. If I was an Administrator, I would have blocked him. But, alas, I am not. If you would like to bring his edits to the attention of an Administrator, feel free to do so. If he continues to make disruptive edits I will bring it to AIV myself. If you do decide to bring it to the attention of an Administrator here are some differences that you can cite: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion declined

Hello KingQueenPrince, just to let you know I have declined your speedy deletion request at Dixie Association, as a Minor Baseball League (AA) there is enough importance asserted to not qualify, also it recently (after the tag removal) has had two sources added. Regards, --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably shouldn't have tagged it as I was unsure if it would qualify for speedy deletion. I probably should have just left the source tags I added and left at it at that. I'll be more careful about any speedy tags I add in the future. Thanks for taking a look at it. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
No worries, A7 is a tricky one some times, and minor leagues, teams, and individual players have in general not qualified in the past. I have had extensive experience in nominating for CSD, PROD, and AfD for players specifically, and they usually end up at AfD (with varying outcomes), cheers. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Archive 1

overlinking

Hi,

Your removal of "massive overlinking" at Anatolia got reverted in an edit war with now-blocked sockpuppets. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, when I get a chance I'll take a look at it. Cheers, King of Nothing (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

List of usurpers

Please do not "warn" me when I am not the one at fault. Please see WP:BURDEN and WP:RS. Any unsourced(not to mention highly controversial) material can be removed. The burden of proof is on the person who adds or reinstates this contentious, not to mention completely unsourced information to provide verifiable reliable sources. Otherwise any unsourced, controversial and/or WP:POV material can and will be removed so that Wikipedia may maintain its standards. So, no WP:RS. Also, the article still requires a tremendous amount of work. Please stop also removing the tag which states just that. If anything that is the WP:VANDALISM. 41.133.1.85 (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing significant content from an article without providing an intelligible reason will almost certainly be reverted. All you had to do was provide an intelligible reason in your edit summary and I would not have reverted it. All you simply had to do is say "removing unsourced and dubious content", or something to that affect and I would not have reverted it. I would, however, have brought the issue to the Talk Page. Your repeated reverts have only caused you to be warned by someone else, for edit warring. Continuing to edit in the manner that you are, with this [edit] and the edit warring will probably result in a block. King of Nothing (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Heir apparent and 1st in line to the throne plus 3rd in line

Reading the article, the terms are synonymous. If so then 2d & 3rd in line also mean would inherit contingent on order of death where the older generation dies before the next. However, not everyone knows that the great grandson George Alexander Louis would only become King if three deaths occur in that order. I didn't check to see if Prince Charles is referred to as merely heir apparent or first in line, which i've earlier noted was synonyms. The term third in line would need the reader to actually know that we don't have a slip up like an abdication like Lizzie's uncle did. Without that abdication of the throne, the child of William & Kate would not have been such a story Lingust (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how the succession to the Throne works. The succession to the throne is governed by the Act of Settlement and other acts of Parliament. If Charles dies before HM The Queen, HRH The Duke of Cambridge would be first in line of succession and HRH Prince George of Cambridge would be second. If Charles dies before HM The Queen, HRH The Duke of Cambridge would become Heir Apparent (he would become King, as long as he does not predecease the Queen, which is the definition of Heir Apparent). I think you misunderstand what the Line of succession is and how it works. HRH Prince George is third in the line of succession, he is the Heir Apparent's (HRH The Prince of Wales) Heir Apparent's (HRH The Duke of Cambridge) Heir Apparent. He can never be moved down the Line of Succession, only up (or removed if he converts to Catholicism, marries a Catholic, or renounces). King of Nothing (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be also under the mistaken perception that the monarch's eldest living son would always become monarch if the monarch dies. This is not so, if the Prince of Wales dies before the Queen, then the Duke of Cambridge would become King at the instant of the Queen's death. If the Duke of Cambridge and the Prince of Wales and The Queen die (no matter what order they die in), then Prince George of Cambridge would become King. King of Nothing (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so very much in responding. i may be very misinformed. thw biggest thing i apprehend is that regardless of what the current rule in England actually be, it may be changed if the English people are unhappy so that Parliament changes the monarch. i am merely using the rules of normal non-royal inheritance. Because ever since the Civil wars Parliament is supreme. Again thank you for straightening out this confusion Lingust (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC) also for being so prompt :-) Lingust (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
No problem. It is true (and has been since the very beginning of Parliament) that "What Parliament does one day, it can undo the next". British Laws (unlike laws in other countries, like America) can change at any time by any future or current Parliament (as their is no such thing as an Act of Parliament being "unconstitutional"). But the Line of Succession to the shared monarchy is a special case and even Parliament cannot change it alone (it would require changing the laws in every single one of the Commonwealth Realms before it would become law in any of the Commonwealth Realms (including the UK)). It is a bit complicated and I'm always glad to help. If you ever have a question, feel free to leave me a note and I'll get back to you as soon as possible. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't tamper with my edits

I don't appreciate you tampering with a recent edit I made as I am not convinced you actually any knowledge of the subject in question and don't contact me. 220.239.167.151 (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. If you aren't willing or prepared to work with the Wikipedia community then you should not be editing Wikipedia. Edits that violate policy will be reverted by me and many other Editors. King of Nothing (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

River Thames

Hi

I am sorry I have been absent but under the weather for a long time. Sorry I failed to acknowledge properly your help -particularly now that I am fitter, back on the case and need your help again!!

Firstly,a confession. 

I have demonstrated poor editing skills on first use recently falling into a basic trap however innocently but with which I agree .

But,I feel that Wikipedia publishes a poor representation of the River Thames. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames due to 

error, ommission and inclusion of irrelevant and doubtful content.

The Thames has long been regarded as London's -and the the South East's premier asset,yet the opening paragragraphs do not convey that and have been adulterated /hijacked by content with external links of doubtful or no relevance

eg This early departure from the main subject.

"In non-administrative use, stemming directly from the feature are Thames Valley University, Thames Water, Thames Television productions, Thames & Hudson publishing and the Thameslink (north-south railways passing through central London). Historic entities include the Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Company".

The Tidal Thames (That which flows from the Thames Estuary... and not the North Sea) through all of London to Teddington, reveals the best views of London's cultural heritage including St Paul's, Tate Modern,Big Ben etc. They are not mentioned .Neither the true amount and value of transportation for trade and tourism.I am not sure if the role of the MCA is omitted or concealed, by that of others referred. 2 The Upper Thames -that starts from Teddington through to the Head of the River is also poorly described in this article with numerous omissions concerning the role of the Thames as a recreational, cultural resource.

1stcanalman (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Recommendation I feel in short the whole article-yes all of it need careful scrutiny as these omissions and errors are of major impact on those studying the subject or wanting a fair represenation of what it has to offer.I believe it is serious enough to warrant a re-write in substantial areas to retrieve a sense of balance and convey an understandable direction to this lengthy article. 1stcanalman (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I write as a long standing Thames champion who published his own humble efforts warts and all entirely supported by long suffering staff, since 1999. 1stcanalman (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Mike Pompeo and new editor

Re the entry on Mike Pompeo, please do not make blanket deletions of all material, especially that which is non-objectionably sourced. The claim that YouTube is not a reliable source would only be the case the individual in question was not himself the primary source. Pompeo archived his speeches and television speeches on his own YouTube channel from which I drew much of the material that was apparently deleted yesterday, even material that had extensive other sources to support it. I saved the original and re-inserted. I understand your concern about ThinkProgress as a source, but my most common source of information for this web page was Mike Pompeo's website, the Congressional record (although the text I researched yesterday has disappeared), and Mike Pompeo's words as captured on video. I will try to reconstruct the material I created yesterday. Please do not remove it unless it violates a Wikipedia policy against a living person. In addition, although you state that you are on the prowl for grammatical errors, your page announcing this has several (including using "that" instead of "who", etc.). Cheers. Mvakkur (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC) MV Mvakkur (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Please view my response on [your talk page]. Cheers. King of Nothing (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Pam Grier.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 04:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.


Cenk Uygur

"Regarding the Armenian Genocide articles, his Armenian-American co-host Ana Kasparian stated in 2010 that "people change their political opinions all the time." DocHeuh (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Toddst1

I don't agree with your comment (now posted in multiple places) that former user Toddst1 was "KIA in the battle against the Double Standard ". He made some questionable decisions as was called to answer for them. Rather than doing so, he simply left. When someone indefs themselves, that is more akin to suicide than homicide. Your comments also lead people to believe that he was not treated fairly, which is not true. - theWOLFchild 05:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but at this point I'll just ask How many legs does a horse have when the horse is already dead? King of Nothing (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2015 (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) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Population of Beijing

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit to the population of Beijing. Please note that you placed a source that does not contain the population number that is now present, so there is no way of verifying if the number is correct. Please use only sources with the number in them, without original research. Also, the UN definition of city proper is not the urban area, but the administrative area which is the number I now quote (with official statistics). Mattximus (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to stay out of it; however, if what you’re saying is accurate your edit still screwed up the list, as you did not change the rankings based on your change in the population number, nor did you change the population density. I understand that there will be contradictions between articles based on the sources used (for example the very differing numbers for Beijing’s population); but, an article should at least not contradict itself. As long as you fix the article contradictions created by your change (1. The Rankings and 2. The population density for Beijing), then I won't revert it again. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
No need to stay out of it, it's good to collaborate. I changed the position, ranking, and pop density to reflect the official statistics. Mattximus (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and you're right, Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Second Elizabethan Era listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Second Elizabethan Era. Since you had some involvement with the Second Elizabethan Era redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevé–selbert 22:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, KingQueenPrince. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KingQueenPrince/Archive_1&oldid=1143115883"