User talk:Billet1684

March 2023
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. DrKay (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. DrKay (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Kay does not use current UK law and current 1917 letters Patent, which specifically state that prince Archie and princess Lilibet or automatically entitled to be styled as such and the only way they would not be styled as prince and princess is that King Charles would have to issue a new letters patent. Dr. K consistently edits incorrect and false information and I will continue to fight this. Billet1684 (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Under those same letters patent Prince Edward's children Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn are also prince/ss, but the palace does not refer to them as such and neither do we. It's up to the monarch to decide who gets what title. Keivan.f  Talk 20:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect as it is up to the individual person if they choose to be styled as such, read the 1917 letters patent in its entirety as you are wrong and you are completely disregarding UK law & that way the 1917 letters patent. It is up to the individual person if they choose, whether or not to be styled as such per the letters Patent. It is not required for the Royal office to confirm. Read the letters Patent. I am appealing, and I am filing a complaint for Dr. Kay’s blatant abuse of their administrative privileges. Billet1684 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not up to the person. Louise and James have not been prince/ss since their birth. They obviously did not decide to be untitled when they were in their mother's womb. Keivan.f  Talk 21:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the current 1917 letters patent, which is current law, the monarch already decided who can be styled as such, and it is not up to the current reigning monarch to confirm it. And per current UK, lol the only way that can change is if the current reigning monarch issues, a new letters patent removing the titles. Billet1684 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are blatantly incorrect and your information is incredulously false. The only other individuals who have right is the individual or the individuals parents in this case Prince Harry and Meghan Markle they can decide to not style their children as prince and princess, but again per current UK law in current 1917 letters patent, it specifically states that they are automatically entitled to be styled as prince and princess. Once their grandfather, King Charles became the current reigning monarch. I have researched and studied the 1917 letters Patent and its entirety and it’s obvious that you have not. Per the 1917 letters patent they are automatically entitled to be styled as such, and only the parents or the individual themself can reject the title the only way the current reigning monarch can change that is by issuing a new letters patent, which is outlined in current UK law of. I have already submitted a formal complaint in an appeal and I have also submitted the current UK law and 1917 letters patent which completely vindicates what I am saying I guarantee you this change will be permanent on Wikipedia, unless King Charles decides to issue a new letters Patent, removing the titles. That’s what happens when you have fax on your side and as soon as the Wikipedia administrators, see the facts that I have submitted I am positive there will not be an issue so again I will continue to fight this time and time again, because you are wrong simple as that. Billet1684 (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not relevant. See WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Drop this approach immediately or expect to be immediately blocked indefinitely. Now is the time to slow down, stop posting, and read the policies and guidelines you've repeatedly been pointed to. You will not get another warning. --Yamla (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I will not drop this approach because I know per law that I am right and I have already submitted that information to prove that I am right and I have already filed complaints against blatant administrative abuse Billet1684 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The only other individuals who have right is the individual or the individuals parents in this case Prince Harry and Meghan Markle they can decide to not style their children as prince and princess. Alright, then put forth an official statement by Harry and Meghan which shows that they refer to their children as Prince/ss. Otherwise, your argument is void and it's WP:OR because neither the palace nor the parents officially refer to those children as Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. Keivan.f  Talk 21:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

All you can do is block an IP address so it’s pretty simple to get around that and I will continue to fight this because her law I am correct Billet1684 (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s not the point the point is they’re automatically entitled to be styled as such her current UK law. I guess current law just doesn’t mean anything to you, you just completely disregard law when it suits you Billet1684 (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As you wish. You are now blocked indefinitely. Any violation of WP:EVADE will count toward a community ban rather than just a block. Any admin is free to lift the block if you have refrained from block evasion, demonstrate you understand WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:CITE, and commit to a completely different approach. --Yamla (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It is current law that they are entitled to be prince and princess, if it wasn’t current law, then I wouldn’t care, but I am strictly abiding by current UK law that is written in place. And it’s disgusting that people like you just completely refused to abide by current law. Billet1684 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * There's no "law" regarding royal titles; this is not a constitutional issue. It was George V's wish, and a monarch's wish can be simply modified or overridden by another monarch such as Elizabeth II who decided that James and Louise should be untitled but she expanded the eligibility criteria in 2013 to ensure Charlotte and Louis had HRH prefixes added to their names. Keivan.f  Talk 21:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, not a problem I have gotten around these blocks many times before and I will continue to edit and I will continue to fight this because per law I am right as a matter fact watch me edit in the next 10 minutes Billet1684 (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You just proved my point there has to be a letters patent issued by the current reigning monarch to take away the titles that Archie and Lilibet were automatically entitled to you literally just proved my point Billet1684 (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I proved no such thing. There were no letters patent issued for James and Louise. Being eligible for something does not mean that you necessarily have to use it. Keivan.f  Talk 21:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Ponyo bons mots 21:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Aside from the fact Billet1684 is wrong to insist on "Prince Archie Mountbatten-Windsor" and "Princess Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor" and was edit warring and does deserve the blocks, is it not actually a conflict of interest for Billet1684 to be blocked by the same admin who was edit warring against him/her? An admin who himself was edit warring, blatantly violated WP:3RR, and just walked away from it. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  00:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

, . I see you are both checkusers. Given the threat above ("I have gotten around these blocks many times before and I will continue to edit") has there been a check? I've noticed that most of the accounts now adding 'Prince' and 'Princess' to Archie and Lilibet's name on various pages all have the same account name format (a word followed by a number). It's not sufficiently suspicious for me to launch a sock-puppet investigation but given the threat, perhaps a check is warranted? I'm happy to be told not. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ping If you see the same behaviour, please do start an SPI and ping me.--  Ponyo bons mots 19:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)