User talk:Mowens35

Hello Mowens, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and manual of style pages are also useful. Feel free to experiment at the Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you have any questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Angela

presumptive vs. apparent

I have read heir apparent and heir presumptive, and it does seem you are confusing one for the other (or Wikipedia's articles on them are wrong). -- Curps 11:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you are quite correct; my apologies.

By the way, if you are a new user, you can sign your comments on a talk page by adding four tildes: ~~~~ , which the software automatically converts into a signature and a timestamp, similar to what appears at the end of this sentence. Curps 11:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

I used the automatic reversion tool on you; I apologise, I shouldn't have - I should have manually reverted you. Please do not revert others without comment.

As I said, her useage of DoR in Scotland is exactly the same as Diana's - she is not changing anything.

James F. (talk) 17:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mountbatten-Windsor

I shortened your explaination that sometimes the Prince of Wales uses the name Mountbatten-Windsor. The beauty of Wikipedia is the ability to hyperlink from one topic to other and not require extensive duplication of information. Both the Mountbatten and Mountbatten-Windsor articles could use the sort of improvement you seem to be adding to the articles of individual members of those families. -Acjelen 18:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Fawzia of Egypt / unnecessary AMBIGUITY

What do you mean by ".......SECOND and last Shah of Iran"? Second of Pahlavi Dynasty would make sense but during 2500 years of Monarchy, Iran was surely ruled by more than 2 shahs, one would suppose. If reference is to IRAN vs Persia, than note that IRAN has always been IRAN from Iranian perspective. Persis/Persia are mere European Names applied to it. Please resolve ensuing ambiguity and delete the term SECOND in this context from the article. --Pantherarosa 08:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duchess of Cornwall

As the difference of views over the article Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall has been rather difficult to resolve, I have created a poll on the talk page. I think you might be interested in voting. -- Emsworth 19:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ingrid of Sweden

Your move of Ingrid of Sweden to Princess Ingrid of Sweden was incorrect. Wikipedia naming conventions rightly place former queens back to their old title minus the word 'princess'. That is standard naming practice used by historians worldwide. Hence historians and wikipeida have Catherine of Aragon not Princess Catherine of Aragon, Mary of Teck not Princess Mary of Teck, etc. If you have changed any other royal spouses in error like this please return them to the correct name format. FearÉIREANN 23:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will be happy to change anything I may have done in error. Mowens35 23:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moving of several articles about consorts

Just a quick suggestion: if you're going to move an article, please make sure there aren't any redirects that point to redirects (i.e. if you go to Silvia Sommerlath, you're redirected to a redirect, which can be irritating to average users). These aren't fixed automatically by the "Move" function and must be done manually by the person who made the move. Thanks. 青い(Aoi) 04:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed you've been renaming queen consort articles to their appropriate title names as per Wiki convention. I've noticed Olga, Queen of Greece is also incorrect, would you suggest moving it to Grand Duchess Olga Konstantinova of Russia, because I wasn't sure? Craigy 21:19, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wiki convention is to not use titles when writing article titles for former queens consort. She would have to be Olga Konstantinova of Russia Mowens35 21:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That pouch

Mitchell, thanks for the email about the pouch quote. Please see my response at Talk:Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark#That pouch. Peter Ellis 14:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

location of royal births and deaths

It is standard policy here not to put in the locations of the births and deaths between the birth and death years. That is because, in a debate quite a long time ago, it was judged that it would make the opening paragraph just too complicated to read. The form used is simply <style> <name> (<birth>-<death>). Other information can be put elsewhere but the opening lines should be very easy to read. You may not realise that. I thought I'd better let you know. FearÉIREANN 22:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Royal consorts and monarchs

hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [1] cheers Antares911 23:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright Registration for Inside Design Now

Sorry to use this public forum. I am in the process of registering the copyright for Inside Design Now with the Library of Congress and I need some information from you. Please contact Wendy at Princeton Architectural Press. (http://www.papress.com has contact information, though not specifically for me.) Or you can email me through this username. Thank you. Wendypap 17:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainier III

In Rainier III, Prince of Monaco, you changed "The prince was a direct descendant of Stéphanie de Beauharnais, an adopted daughter of Napoleon Bonaparte, and of William Thomas Beckford, the scandalous 18th century English collector, tastemaker, writer, and eccentric." to "The prince was a direct descendant of Josephine de Beauharnais, the first wife of Napoleon Bonaparte, and of William Thomas Beckford, the scandalous 18th century English collector, tastemaker, writer, and eccentric." I am nearly certain this is incorrect, but thought I'd ask you for the exact descent that you claim for Rainier from Josephine, just in case I'm wrong. - Nunh-huh 03:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct; i have doublechecked and realize my mistake. Mowens35 12:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ancestry of Pauline de Rothschild

You're right; my information at the time I made that edit (some months ago) was incomplete (from my own genealogical files; Francis Scott Key is my 4th cousin 6x removed, and Mary Tayloe Lloyd is my 2nd cousin 6x removed) and I've since (after further research) discovered I was in error. I do note, however, that the previous version incorrectly showed the line of descent passing through Gwendolen Cary. 65.13.28.4 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct; all is well now Mowens35 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rothschild Wife's Death

Thanks for your message, though I'm not quite sure what your point is. As far as I remember all I did was change the word "executed" to "gassed" in the article at Elisabeth de Rothschild. I would still say that "executed" is inappropriate however she was put to death, but if you think I distorted the facts, and have sources to support your version, I suggest you quote them in the article. At the moment it says she died of typhus. Best wishes, Flapdragon 15:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral descent

I happen to be aware that the term has some legal meaning (in determining inheritance, mainly); however, it has no genealogical meaning. It is only used in reference to genealogy by amateurs. None of the professional genealogists of my acquaintance uses it, nor would they; one is descended from one's ancestors, and not from their siblings. In a genealogical, and not a legal sense, a precise description of the relationship involved is better than the fuzziness of saying 'collateral descendant'. 65.13.28.4 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also know several professional genealogists and they have no problem with the term. It's hardly fuzzy at all; it's quite clear that it means you are not a direct descendant (ie a lineal descendant) but merely one descended from a brother or sister of said person. And numerous state and local genealogical and historical societies have no problem with the term either. Mowens35 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, it is, strictly speaking, a legal term of art which refers to the devisal of property in the absence of direct heirs (hence its use by, for instance, hereditary societies, in which right of membership may descend through a collateral line). The use of the term seems to have arisen through a confusion of legal and genealogical meanings of 'descent'; it would be more appropriate to say that one has a 'collateral relationship' (by virtue of descent from a common ancestor) to a given person not in one's direct line. And even accepting the definition of 'collateral descendant of X' as 'descendant of a brother or sister of X', F. Scott Fitzgerald is not a collateral descendant of Francis Scott Key (because he descends from Francis Scott Key's great-grandfather and not from one of his siblings). 65.13.28.4 09:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir

Hi Mowens

I don't care much about it; but I think it's a pretentious title when bestowed in modern times, and I'm happy for it not to be highlighted in those cases. "Sir Thomas Moore" might be less grating because it refers to a different age. That appears to be the view that underlies WP's policy. Tony 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you're thinking it's "pretentious" would be considered POV by Wiki. So I think it should stay when appropriate. Mowens35 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pocahontas / Rothschild

No problem, glad to be able to nail the descent down. (If only she'd had childen, what a delightful ancestry they would have had!) - Nunh-huh 16:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. I've also corrected the identity of the first husband of Elisabeth de Rothschild; let me know if you have any reservations about this. - Nunh-huh 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donyale Luna

Thanks for help on DL article, glad I could start it. V. Joe 00:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Windsor and brothers

True, but George was outraged by the abdication and of course obeyed the King's strict injunction against going to the wedding (Edward peremptorily returned the Kents' wedding present); George was particularly close to Queen Mary and her views on "her" were uncompromising; Henry was outraged by Edward's horning in on Henry's visits to the troops in France, particularly when Edward took the salute.Masalai 09:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which statements, precisely, are you taking issue with?Masalai 00:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar de Evia's partner

Hi, Mowens35. I belive the wording "Later in life, his companion was David McJonathan-Swarm" in refering to Edgar de Evia sounds strange because this "David McJonathan-Swarm" is someone unknown to the casual reader. Maybe, we should use something on the lines of "Later in life, his companion was a man called David McJonathan-Swarm" or "Later in life, his companion was a photographer/politicia/phisycian called David McJonathan-Swarm". I appreciate your input. --Abu Badali 18:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think his profession is unnecessary, re D McJ-S. Although I will certainly ask him what his profession actually is, if you think it will help. I don't think we would use "a woman named" in another similar context. Mowens35 18:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'm saying it that a name is a name, that's all, and doesn't really require anything beyond that at times. Mowens35 18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok with "Later in life, his companion was Steven Spielberg", as Steven Spielberg is a well known name that doesn't really require anything beyond that. But McJonathan is an unknow name for the casual reader, and some minnor info on him would simply warn the reader he is really not supposed to be known. Also, I didn't mean to emphasize the homesexual nature of the relatioship. I have no problem with this. The use of "a man" just reflected my inability to better qualify that person (mentioning the profession being just a not-so-better tentative). Best regards, --Abu Badali 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think, based on numerous other Wiki entries, that an identifier re a spouse/companion/lover is not necessary under the circumstances, ie as part of a list of romantic companions/spouses. It is clear that he is a man, given his first name and de Evia's previous relationship. It is just stated as a matter of fact, nothing more. But I will email D McJ-S and find out more. Mowens35 18:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar de Evia Archives, New York City, New York

Hi, Mowens35. What are the "Edgar de Evia Archives, New York City, New York" you mention as a source? Thanks, --Abu Badali 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted material

Please, do not post copyrighted materia to my User page (or any other Wikipedia page for the record) as you did in this edition. Also, whenever possible, avoid comments larger than 100 lines. A link would work better in this case. --Abu Badali 21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--Abu Badali 13:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farah Pahlavi

The presence of the née in the beginning of the article will permit the article to popup in a search when searching for her but without giving her Pahlavi name. For example, if you type in Dahi, you wont find her but if you add the Dahi in the first words of the sentence, then the search catches it. I would be happy if you would restore it in order to help with the searching capabilities of the encyclopedia. Lincher 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the same thought, it isn't true that the Pahvali have renouced to their crown, they still adhere to the idea though it they aren't the current ruler of Iran. Please refrain from making such assumptions or add references to what you changed. Lincher 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per other pretenders, Wiki cites the titles they use or claim; the Iranian royals neither use nor claim any of their titles, as per their own websites. Mowens35 19:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This claim you make isn't true since all her website is placarded with the word Empress and if she would refuse her title, the especially the official site would be showing her name without the title. Lincher 19:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

get over yourself; i misspoke and just fixed it; are you happy? oh, I hope so.Mowens35 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also please consider reading this [2] found on her website that states that even if she isn't the empress she still claims to the title. I will also add that even though I assumed good faith after you modification of the née thingy you went berserk and changed all the dynasty stuff which in my opinion shouldn't be done without clearly identifying your sources or giving a reason on the talk page.

I am sorry I went all out like that but I have been perusing wikipedia and saw enough mistakes today that this was too much for me for now. Lincher 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Almanach de Gotha, for instance, Farah's weird combined use of her former title with her family surname is incorrect and unprecedented officially, though she uses it. The only members of the former imperial family who are entitled to use the surname along with a princely title are the younger sons of a Shah. Daughters of the monarch are styled (when the monarch was active) as "Princess FIRSTNAME of Iran"; younger sons of the monarch are "Prince FIRSTNAME Pahlavi"; grandchildren use a different version of prince and princess (which indicate a grandchildren instead of a son/daughter) along with their first name and surname.Mowens35 19:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Zerbe‎

Thanks for your additions to Jerome Zerbe‎. I'd like to ask where you learned about the location of his collection? I created and wrote the original Zerbe article; I'm interested in knowing what became of his work. Thanks. --K72ndst 21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine archived and catalogued the collection for Mr Koch about a decade ago, after he purchased it from Zerbe's estate.Mowens35 13:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Work on Evia's article

Hi, Mowens35. Do you still have some plans to work on this article as you mentioned? You've done a great deal of work but it it still has far too many unsourced claims (not inserted by you, I know). I plan to make a clean up on this article to remove any such passages, but of course it would be better to wait for your work on it to be finished. Thanks for your attention. Best regards, --Abu Badali 01:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Osborn article

Thanks for your recent work on the Kris Osborn article. I took what was basically a one-sentence stub and added quite a bit of information. I was glad to see that you were able to add quite a bit more information, while at the same time maintaining most of what I had contributed. Thanks again. I think the article reads very well. Dbart 21:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

helpme

I cannot stay signed into Wikipedia for more than a few seconds at a time; when I shift between articles or click on a link, the page opens and indicates that I'm now NOT signed in; I've already signed it about 20 times in the last five-10 minutes. What is the problem?

Do you have cookies enabled? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the IP that put this in, it looks like you are using a satellite internet connection. That commonly seems to cuase problems with the cookies wikipedia uses to keep you signed in. --pgk 20:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has worked fine until today, utterly fine. Last night, for instance, it was perfect, not a glitch.

Moving pages

You've been told before as I can see to never ever move articles without discussion first. Such moves are very ill-advised no matter how certain you are about how good are they, except very few non-controversial cases. Your move of the Russian empress article may spark fire. In any case, please do not ever do it. --Irpen 23:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not move anything; which is why I posted a message. Your high dudgeon is warrantless at this point, as well your warning.Mowens35 23:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aplologies! Very much sorry! Someone else moved it and I posted my comments to your talk by error! Sorry again, too much stuff going on. :( --Irpen 23:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viscount Linley

This is copied from User talk:67.142.130.31, where I posted it two days ago. I am assuming that that IP belongs to you, given your subsequent comments, but that you did not see this message. TysK 02:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The forms of address page lists how peers (and courtesy peers) are referred to in writing in formal circumstances, such as on the outside of envelopes. The courtesy title page similarly tells how peers and courtesy peers are generally referred to if their whole title is given; however, both "actual" and courtesy marquesses, earls, viscounts, and barons can be and commonly are referred to as "Lord X," both orally and in writing. The Marquess of Winchester can also be called simply Lord Winchester, and the (courtesy) Marquess of Blandford can also be called simply Lord Blandford. These forms are commonly used by the British government, the media, and Wikipedia. Indeed, on Wikipedia peers (or courtesy peers) below the rank of duke are always referred to as "Lord X," except in circumstances where there must be clarity about which "Lord X" is being discussed (non-contemperaneous references, family relationships, and obviously article titles, among others). As an example see Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury, who was a prominent British politician when he held the courtesy title Viscount Cranborne. The article consistently refers to him as "Lord Cranborne," which, as I said, is standard practice Wiki-wide. If you have any doubts about this, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage. I also think showing Linley's place in the line of succession at the time of his birth shows how much more prominent as a member of the royal family he was then than now-- fifth in line is rather high, neither Prince Edward nor Princess Anne is currently that high in line.

As per his status as a child in line of succession, I continue to think it incredibly minor and without much interest today, more than 40 years on. Unless, of course, you wish to add similar notations to other members of his family, ie his sister, showing that she was in close line as well, though quite long ago. Mowens35 14:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Snowdon

I don't want to begin an edit war with you, but I had to revert several edits you made to Lord Snowdon's page, and you deserve an explanation. First of all, it is standard practice to only list the senior peerage held by a peer in the article lead and in the list of titles; the fact that his barony is a life peerage makes no difference. I re-inserted the reference to Margaret in the first paragraph. Though Lord Snowdon is prominent enough to merit an article on his own, he is certainly most well-known as Margaret's husband (i.e., when most people hear Lord Snowdon, they don't think "photographer", they think "royal ex"). Note that almost the entire article is devoted to Snowdon's marriages and family, while his career merits only two sentences. I agree with your deletion of the Anne Hill reference if it is true that she was no more or less important than several different women in his life. I was under the impression that they had been engaged in a steady relationship throughout his life and up to the time of her death, while other women (such as the mother of his younger son) were merely flings or short-term relationships. However, I know nothing of the peculiarities of the case. I changed "Snowdon-Windsor" back to "Armstrong-Jones-Windsor" because it bothers me that the former gives his title but her surname, while the latter simply gives their surnames. It is also worth noting that he was not made a peer until they had been married for over a year, so their was no "Snowdon" until then. I am open to a change of mind on this point, though. I hope my reasons for making the changes are logical and do not provoke "high dudgeon" from you. TysK 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) He was only Armstrong-Jones for less than a year after their marriage, hence my alteration to Snowdon. (2) I'm putting his marriage to Margaret on a separate graph; by this time in his career, he is one of Britain's most celebrated photographs, let's give the man that credit. (3) Several other articles cite both senior peerage and lesser peerage, in the case of a life peerage (check them out and let's discuss). And do get a copy of Debrett's; it will help you considerably. And do spell using American English, rather than Queen's English; the latter is a bit pretentious not to mention non-Wiki.Mowens35 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'll be beefing up his career graphs, which will be substantial.Mowens35 23:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I'll give in on the Snowdon. (2) If you add significant information about his career, the reference to Margaret in the lead probably will become unnecessary. (3) Give an example of one of these other articles, then we'll discuss, as I believe any article that did so would be going against standards. (4) I'm not sure where I used "Queen's English" over American English; however, it is Wiki policy that articles on British subjects should use British spellings, and I try to adhere to that (though that's difficult because I'm an American!) TysK 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ie subject headings like "Titles and Honours" should be "Titles and Honors", that is an example I've changed today Mowens35 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Diana Cooper

I await your next message. Mowens35 23:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, her daughter-in-law was Anne, Viscountess Norwich, but lost both the "The" in front of her name as well as the "Rt. Hon.", which made Lady Diana the only "The Viscountess Norwich" and the only one with the honorific. TysK 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As important as this discussion is, I'm going to have to suspend it for now, as I have real-life places to be. TysK 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you best check Debrett's for Diana's proper style and title between 1985 and 1986. Find a copy published in those years for confirmation. I also would be happy to call the editors there; I often do for work. Mowens35 23:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is essentially that a widowed peeress doesn't need to change her style (adding "Dowager") when there's no need to do so. If she's already changed it, and that change becomes retrospectively unnecessary, I think it unlikely she could (or would want to) change it back. With some noble families this would result in the unfortunate lady constantly changing titles whilst her wayward noble son repeatedly marries and divorces. (It would also most likely cause some confusion: though the former wife of the current peer is now formally "Jane, Countess of Loamshire", it's at least conceivable that she will continue to be called "the Countess of Loamshire" by some people (just as Sarah, Duchess of York is still occasionally (and erroneously) referred to as "the Duchess of York"), and so it would be inadvisable for her mother-in-law to be too ready to re-assume that style.) Proteus (Talk) 10:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment remains: what did Debrett's or another authority call her at the various times in her life, at the end of her life. It doesn't matter what you think, honestly; it's what an authority states.Mowens35 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Cooper

Your recent contribution(s) to to the Wikipedia article Anderson Cooper are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Thanks! Please remember that claiming that this is verifiable is not enough. We need actual sources. See WP:V. -- lucasbfr ^talk 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is go to gawker.com and type his name into the search engine; endless citations come up. Do you actually want all of them? Or just one?

Per WP:RS we are not a tabloid. Gossip sites are not the best sources of information. Also, please be mindfrul of WP:3RR on the article. Thank you. -- Avi 01:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the notations re gossip columns but have put Cooper's comment into context, since it was stated in New York Magazine in response to an article written about him in Out magazine. Without context, his quote makes no sense and should be removed. Mowens35 01:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield citation

The Strait book isn't the Bible, and just the last name of the author isn't much of an identity. Besides, it looks strange to have the same citation put in as numbers 22 through number 32. Any particular reason for not citing the full name of the book and the author, and putting the same "Strait" on multiple places on the same list without any added reference (like page number or something)? - Aditya Kabir 17:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya, it is common practice in any editorial situation to fully cite the book upon first reference, then merely the author's name next, often with the page number. I have edited enough books to know this. I will find the quotes' page numbers, but am at my office now; the book is at my home. It is where I got most of the quotes. It was the first biography published about Mansfield and written by her longtime press agent, Raymond Strait, who has since become a major biographer of Hollywood subjects.Mowens35 17:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right. And, that is exactly why WP uses the < ref name= "..." > code. It enables you to quote the same source without making a long list. Instead of being listed as references 12, 13 and 14 - for instance - they get listed as reference 12 a, b, and c. Besides WP has a citation guideline (check WP:CITET), which I hope will satisfy you. One more thing - thanks and congratulations for your efforts to put references to the Jayne Mansfield article. Can you apply the citation templates to any other citation you made or will make? I would also like to request that you give a hand to cleaning the article up. It's not good read yet. And, since you are quite knowledgeable about the subjet, may be you can help. Thanks again. - Aditya Kabir 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been cleaning it up like crazy; give me some time. We all (I think) have other jobs, too. And I'm not knowledgable about her at all; I just know how to research quickly.Mowens35 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on two counts. You don't know how to do quick research. You have not even checked how to cite sources at WP, even when you were directed to it. And, you have not been clening it up like crazy. Adding a few sources is not cleaning up like crazy. The article was not one ounce a better since you have gone through it about half a dozen times. Sorry, arrogance serves no one. And, please, don't take this personally. - Aditya Kabir 18:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your destructive edit

Because you asked, here is a detailed reply giving reasons why I regard your said edit destructive.

You erased totally the following section from the article:

Issue

From his second marriage with Angelica Philippa Kauffmann (born Paris 21 June 1932 or 23 March 1932), whom Paul married in Palm Beach, Florida on 1 October 1952, he had four children. His issue is as follows:

Dimitri Ilyinsky, de jure Duke of Holstein-Gottorp (born Palm Beach 1 May 1954) who married New Haven, Connecticut 22 September 1979 Martha McDowell (born New Haven, Connecticut 15 Jun 1952) and has three daughters:

- Catherine Adair Ilyinsky (born Cincinnati, Ohio 4 August 1981)
- Victoria Bayard Ilyinsky (born Cincinnati, Ohio 23 November 1984)
- Lela McDowell Ilyinsky (born Cincinnati, Ohio 26 August 1986)

Paula Maria Ilyinsky (born Palm Beach, Florida 18 May 1956), married Cincinnati, Ohio 31 May 1980 Mark Comisar (born Cincinnati, Ohio 17 June 1953), and had two children, the elder of whom survives:

- Alexander Lee Comisar (born Cincinnati 6 April 1983)
- Makena Anna Comisar (Cincinnati 20 Nov 1984-Clermont County, Ohio 1 August 2002)

Anna Ilyinsky (born Palm Beach 4 September 1959); married firstly Henniker, New Hampshire 9 May 1980 (divorced 1990) Robin de Young (born Cambridge, Massachusetts 25 December 1952) ; married secondly Cincinnati, Ohio 18 December 1992 David Wise Glossinger (born Dayton, Ohio 11 July 1953). Has four children, two of each marriage:

- Audrey Emery de Young (born Cincinnati 1 April 1983)
- Heather Morrison de Young (born Cincinnati 25 October 1985)
- Sophia Wise Glossinger (born Cincinnati 5 May 1993)
- Paul Glossinger (born Cincinnati 19 Sep 1995)

Michael Ilyinsky (born Palm Beach 4 Jan 1961); married firstly Cincinnati 7 November 1989 (divorced 1996) Paula Maier (born Cincinnati 1 September 1965); married secondly 21 May 1999 (divorced 2001) Lisa Marie Schiesler (born 17 May 1973). Has one daughter, born of first marriage:

- Alexis Taylor Ilyinsky (born 1 March 1994)

There is no controversy that this actually is Paul Ilyinsky' publicly known and legitimate issue. My reasons why it should be allowed to stay in the article, are same which I already wrote: "rv destructive edit... This branch is in monarchist circles presented as heirs of titles or monarchies, list of them has thus encyclopedic value". There it is said in concise form. Much more words would not fit into the small space supplied to edit comments. One of the reasons why Paul Ilyinsky, a former mayor of a town, has his biography article here is because he is agnatically senior member of the Holstein-Gottorp princely family, and similarly a genealogically senior (though possibly non-dynastic) descendant of the Russian Imperial Family. Most of links to his biography article seem to come from other pages dealing with royalty, which fact is a signal of weight why that article exists/ is needed. He and his branch have been presented as potential heirs in monarchist circles. Therefore, his branch (those who are his heirs, successors and potential heirs), i.e his descendants, have encyclopedic value of being potential heirs to certain defunct thrones and titles. And they clearly have that position together (having inherited it from Paul) - it will be somewhat meaningless to create own biography article of each (I know that here exist even such editors who create those, but I am not willing to endorse such individual articles). Therefore, a lit of his descendants is a justified thing to his biography article. To some people, formerly-reigning royalty and their heirs have entertainment value - some glossy magazines follow doings of such royals, and publish articles about them (I have got an impression that you also are in that sort of business), and people read those. To some (possibly other) people, pretenders and restorations of monarchies are important things, apparently. That sort of information has, already on those bases, its encyclopedic value. So, it should not be repelled from here. However, you decided to erase that whole section, and even without first raising question about it in the relevant talk page. I regard that behavior destructive. Shilkanni 08:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Shah the Great

I made a number of changes to clarify the various names used for Reza Shah the Great. Have a look if you like! Shervink 16:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure about the exact meaning of "Mirpanj", but I can probably look it up. He must have adopted "Pahlavi" around 1925 (when he was elected Shah), but I do not know exactly when. What the word means you can see here and here.Shervink 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]

Your userpage

Per your request, I've deleted your userpage. If you needed access to any of the old edits, or if you'd like to restore selective parts of the history, let me know. Luna Santin 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Mansfield fix

Hi,

I took the Jayne Mansfield article back to the December 20th version. all versions after that were screwed up. Hope that helps. Please read discussion for further info. Help that helps. Philbertgray 15:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ford vandalism fixed

Removed. I reverted the edit.198.151.12.8 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stavros Niarchos III

Thank you for cleaning the article up. I tried to find good sources for some of the information before you so kindly cleaned it up. The Evening Standard source, note 4, talks about his education a little but some of that info. is not verified in the said article. I am not the original writer of this one so I don't know where the locality and name of the school came from. I was just trying to source things. The Lindsay Lohan allegation doesn't seem to have any good sources, but I can keep looking. --Ashley Rovira 18:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ford's father

Feel free to add a discussion on why the info on Ford's abusive father keeps being removed and why it should stay. I agree with you. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 22:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ford

Hey, thanks for editing the Gerald Ford article. I've been trying to repair some vandalism to the page that was incorrectly repaired, but I keep getting edit conflicts with you since you're updating the page. Perhaps next time you edit it you can convert the thing that was damaged between these edits? His middle name, second successor, signature, etc. Thanks much, delldot | talk 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, I took care of it. Peace, delldot | talk 19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Cooper 2

I have explained my removal of the section on the talk page of the article in question. Also, please refrain from threatening to edit war - such an act could be seen as disruption and could lead to your being blocked. I disagree with any re-insertion of the first section, linked to the opinion of another journalist (for the reasons on the talk page), however I am willing to let the quote part stay as it does seem to be acceptable under WP:BLP-Localzuk^(talk) 19:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at it again... I think it shouldn't be there at all. The para is as such 'Someone in X magazine speculated about Anderson Coopers sexuality and he replied to another journalist 'I don't comment on my personal life'.' How is that pertinent to the article? How does it add anything to the article other than speculation by proxy? -Localzuk^(talk) 19:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But his thoughts on his role as a journalist are completely irrelevant as a response to the speculation. I have asked Jimbo Wales to have a quick look at it, as he has a very good understanding of our responsibilites with regards to living people. Hopefully he can clear this up for us. -Localzuk^(talk) 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree - regardless of the person speculating and in what magazine, unless it is backed up with some evidence it is still just gossip. Including his response of what is effectively 'no comment' makes it no less gossip...-Localzuk^(talk) 19:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well my response to your email would be that you have misunderstood my contacting and referencing Jimbo. I believe that Jimbo, as he has to deal with complaints about biography articles every day, has a much greater understanding of what we can and cannot post on this site and what is suitable for inclusion. Making snarky comments such as 'Since Localzuk seems to believe that you are the court of last appeal/opinion, I felt I needed to contact you as well.' do not encourage me to continue working with you and do not show that you assume good faith. What is bad about what I have done? I have removed what I see as material that is in violation of our policies and then entered into a discussion about it. Seeing that we are unlikely to be able to agree on this issue, I have then attempted to get someone who has a better understanding of these issues involved... I just can't see why your attitude in that email is adversarial towards me? I will now await, I hope, Jimbo's input on this. Localzuk^(talk) 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did look over the discussions on the talk page and saw no clear consensus to keep the information. Also, as I have said, I believe my deletion comes under our WP:BLP policy - which is non-negotiable as it can lead to legal problems for Wikipedia if it is not followed. This is why I have contacted Jimbo - as it seems we need someone with long standing knowledge to come and say something as we seem to be going round in circles.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed he has, and I have replied. I have also posted a proposal on the talk page of the article.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should also take into account that Jimbo also suggested using 'just a couple of sentences'. I just think the quote is too large for the actual value added by the information.

Also, your response to this entire issue has been 'it is fine as it is' and when asked to shorten it you take out some but leave a large chunk of over-specific information in. I am simply trying to improve the quality of the site but you seem to simply want to keep that information no matter what anyone else says.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept this as it is for the time being - I am going to go away and do some other editing. However, I still don't like the quote - it is too verbose for something that is not as important to the article as most of the rest of the article.

Also, don't speculate about my age - you have no idea of my age (unless in fact you have done some research) and even then, I have declined to post it on this site so you shouldn't speculate about it. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and yes, I know Jimbo was making suggestions - hence my use of 'suggested' in my comment above... And my mentioning of this was simply to show that I am not wanting to simply cull things but instead I am just trying to reduce prominence by reducing space.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just think the quote is overly verbose for the purpose it is being used. If you also discussed his views on his role as a journalist as well as the related sexuality stuff then it would be much more acceptable to me. As it stands I just think we have a 3 line quote saying what half a sentence could say. My 'for now' comment is simply because I am going to leave this matter and come back and see if anyone else has made any comments. It means I will be back to discuss it further at a later date.

Also, out of unrelated interest, could you email me the source of my age? :D I'd like to know if it is what I think it is...-Localzuk^(talk) 21:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deletion of photograph of Conde Nast headstone

I don't know where you got the idea that a headstone photograph is trivia. Conde Nast died in 1942, and it is not possible for me to submit a photograph that I took of him. I will not upload a copyrighted photograph of him from the Internet, so about a the only thing that I can legally upload is a photograph that I took of his cemetery headstone. This is the first time that I've had a cemetery photograph deleted on Wikipedia, and I've uploaded a lot of headstone images to the encyclopedia. Don't delete good photographs.

Anthony22

Why not

Why not make a user page? Fattdoggy 15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (click me!)[reply]

Followup to Conde Nast headstone

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone could think that the photo of Conde Nast's headstone would be a fake. Nast is a very uncommon name. Where would I locate a phony headstone? I simply photographed the headstone at Conde Nast's grave in Gate of Heaven Cemetery. For your information, Conde Nast and Babe Ruth are both interred in the same section of the cemetery. How's that for a coincidence! Also, it is absurd to state that only exceptional or extraodinary cemetery headstones are worthy of inclusion into an enclycopedia. Some of the greatest Americans who ever lived have no more than a footstone at their grave site. People don't always use opulence or conspicuous consumption when they design the markers at their final resting place. No two people have the same face, and no two people have the same mind. I must confess that I don't agree with anything that you say.

Anthony22

Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan

Thanks for your rececent edits to Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan. I noticed that you had previously been an editor. I tried to build on the foundation that you and others had put in place, and afterwards I was eager to have further input / editing from others. So I'm glad to see you've returned to the article!

I made a couple of changes after your recent edits - most importantly adding back information about his death. I think that info is important and shouldn't be lost. Information on his social relations is still missing. There are hints in some in the sources - his nickname "Sadri" and his personal affiliations with well known personalities.

I'd like to see if this article can be improved to the point of qualifying for FA status. Yannismarou provided some encouraging advise during the recent peer review. If the remaining blanks can be filled-in, I think the next step would be to do a general peer review to generate more interest and obtain further feedback. Then, barring any major overhauls, move for a FAC submition. What do you think? -- Cimm^[talk] 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the man, not his social affiliations, that are important. I'd rather more emphasis be put on his work, his career, rather than who he was friends with, etc. The family section is fine as is; we don't need to know anything about them. To emphasize them or his friends more only undercuts his career strides and importance.Mowens35 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I noticed that you moved his death information into a section of its own. I had considered that but I think it looks stubby. Perhaps it would be better to place it back in the lead? Cimm^[talk] 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W.Somerset Maugham

Given your previous or current interest in Somerset Maugham - can you please add any thoughts you might have at Talk:W. Somerset Maugham#What next? Peer Review? so that we can move the article up a notch? V i r tualSteve 09:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Si-alykhan.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Si-alykhan.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Cooper

I'd appreciate your views on the talk page of Anderson Cooper bio article. I have added content that is sourced, verifiable, notable and not from a gossip site, but from the editorial page of the Washington Blade raising direct questions about Cooper's integrity as a journalist in response to his comments on his "personal life" (hence the section title). And an anonymous user again blanked the whole section, and an administrator seems to be siding with this person. I think something very fishy is going on here. I'd really appreciate your views. NYDCSP 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Mansfield

You might want to look at my reorganisation of the Jayne Mansfield page. Melbn 09:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Lady of the United States

I noticed your comments on Talk:Second Lady of the United States. If you think that the article is improperly titled, you might considering nominating it for renaming. --TommyBoy 19:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on my earlier comments, you can submit a request for renaming at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --TommyBoy 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a Salesman: The Jayne Mansfield starrer

Can you lend a hand in dredging up something about the Jayne Mansfield theater performance of Death of a Salesman (probably in 1953), and add to Death of a Salesman#On Stage? May be you can lead the redlink on Jayne Mansfield#Notable theater performances to that update as well. Please, respond to my talk page. Thank you. Aditya Kabir 06:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jaynemansfield.jpg

The image has been tagged for deletion, and the uploader User:Philbertgray is currently not active. Can you help providing a source and name of the copyright holder on the image page? Aditya Kabir 20:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Mansfield

The article on Jayne Mansfield, that you helped greatly to improve has been up for peer review. Many improvements were suggested, and I managed to address a few of those issues. But, without your help the article is getting stagnant. The biggest problem still lies with style and citations. Please, take a look that review here. I really believe that the time is ripe for the article to become at least a good article, if not an feature article, with your help. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, advise

Since you have helped the Jayne Mansfield article to become what it is today, I'd like to draw your attention to another article split off from the main one - Jayne Mansfield in popular culture. It has been nominated for deletion a second time here, and the supports so far are three way - "Delete", "Keep" and "Merge" - with a few comments thrown in (mostly by the nominator and I). Would you take a look at the debate and the article? Even if you stay away from voicing your view on the debate page, you can advise me on my talk page (may be lend a hand, too). I hope I am not canvassing :P. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde

A tag has been placed on Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Mowens35! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Simone Micheline Bodin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Peer Review needed: Jayne Mansfield

A mid-importance article supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers that was reviewed by Version 1.0 Editorial Team and selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions. The article has come a long way from a fan boy mish mash to a fair enough GA. Now is the time to take it to the next level. Currently it's going through another peer review. Please, lend a hand. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mowens35

Do you have an interest in Gerald Ford?

Then maybe you might have an interest in joining WikiProject Gerald Ford! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the life, career, and presidency of Gerald Ford.

We're very much a new project, so you have the opportunity to help form the design and structure of the WikiProject itself in addition to creating and improving content about Ford. You are more than welcome to join us by adding your username under the "Participants" section of our WikiProject page. Everyone is welcome, and you are free to contribute where and when you like.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask a member, and we'll be happy to help you. Hopefully we'll see you around the WikiProject!

You received this invitation in view of your significant contributions to the Gerald Ford article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]