User talk:Renamed user abcedarium/Archive2

Rumplestiltskin
The prurient "reading" attributed to the Opies has been commented out until you can provide at least the name of the Opie publication where this appears. Thank you. --Wetman 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

French royals
That's very good work you're doing on pages concerning French royalty. Keep it up! :-) Marialadouce | parlami 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. This kind of minor wikifying, putting in order, adding links, etc, really does add up. It's not usually what catches other editors' attention, but it's important work because otherwise Wikipedia starts to look a bit frayed around the edges. I'd help you myself, but I'm far away from home and my books and local library at the moment. Happy editing! Marialadouce | parlami 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Bal des ardents.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bal des ardents.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 18:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Queen Mary article
Thank you for your reasoned response to Rhode Islander. If I had seen his reply before yours I don't know how I would have responded. (I honestly did think it was a minor issue!) Tocharianne 20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Eudes IV, Duke of Burgundy
Good find. I made an error of one century. Easy mistake to make :) --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * Terse is good! --Tagishsimon (talk)

Citing Sources
Hi sorry to be annoying but I've just put a cite Tag back on Elizabeth de Burgh. Please take a look at Citing sources, for qualifying entries. Cheers Brendandh 04:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Eudes IV, Duke of Burgundy - Project Gutenberg etext 19488.jpg
Thanks. I'm easy about whether it gets renamed (should be IMage:Philip III, Duke of Burgundy - Project Gutenberg etext 19488.jpg or deleted. Thing is, we already have better a image of Phil and I question whether we'd use this one. I can't give any more guidance on the rename or delete issue. But we do need to get the name changed lest anyone be misled into thinking this is dear old Eudes. I've asked User:Jastrow to be bold and to make the decision --Tagishsimon (talk)

License tagging for Image:Margaret of Sicily.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Margaret of Sicily.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 21:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved from user page
The claimants to the French throne - Clearly you know nothing about the French Monarchy, you should seriously consider reading the book first! How could you delete a properly referenced article such as this? I shall revert it back to ensure the Ebenhardt claim is properly brought into the light! You ass! I am a history professor who has done estensive research on this topic and it is extremely unfair for you to delete my research. Keep up the good work though, you're objectivity shall lead you to great things in this profession. I'm just so glad to see someone else so interested in the events surrounding the French Monarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf5757 (talk • contribs)

History
Hi, Michael. Just reading your latest comment on the Edward IV talk page. It's so nice to come across someone young (and I don't mean that patronizingly) who's interested in history. Personally, I am always up for a chat on those subjects. Deb 12:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not
You have violated the 3RR, and you have deleted people's edits without discussing it first. Apparently, you did not learn your lesson when you were blocked twice. It is clear to me your are not all right and your behavior is totally out of line. Do not contact me further. You have been warned. RosePlantagenet 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been reported. RosePlantagenet 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Royal Descent
Yes, I am glad we came to an argeement. Hopefully the article will be benefited from that.

Well, on my mother's side, I am actually descended from the Plantagenets on both my grandparent's side. My grandparents and my mother are descended from those first colonist in Virgina. The reason why both my grandparents are is because the families did intermarry.

I am descended from the Plantagenets several times and through almost all the surviving children. My grandmother is descended from Mary Tudor. And, recently, when I did my father's family tree there were Plantagenets in there too. As a matter of fact, my great great great grandfather on my father's side was an illegimate son of a King. Keep in mind my parents did not know this, which makes it weird. But they are so distantly related it does not matter.

That is why I got so upset is because I am passionate about my family tree.RosePlantagenet 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess we are cousins, then. OMG, family feuding! I enjoy being able to trace my family too. But, never give up on any lines that might go dead. I thought my father's family was going nowhere and then I found out about my great great great grandfather. I feel the same way you do. I am descended from Elizabeth Stuart (King James I daughter) on my father's side. And, on my mother's side, King Henry IV, Mary Tudor, George Plantagenet (Not a senior claimant for either), but I am not going to go and bring down the Windsors as someone mentioned on Edward IV's talk page. Anyways, it was a pleasure fighting and working with another relative. RosePlantagenet 20:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dates etc
Firstly, dates only alter automatically if you have an account and have set the setting. For the millions you dont have an account they dont, so we follow Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29. For English Queens, the British date format is used. With regards to the "Queen Consort..." in opening line, look at all deceased consorts of Kings, only their premarital name is in bold like that. Again this is per Manuel of Style. Thanks. --Berks105 15:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, lets ignore the dates and focus on the opening line. The "Queen Consort..." should not be there so please don't reinsert it. Only living consorts have this in bold like that. With regards to the dates I changed these per Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 as I was correcting the opening line, there is nothing wrong with that. --Berks105 15:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but is widely understood that it refers to people from those countries, and other thinks like TV programmes etc. I accept their not English, but as they married the King of England, I think English dates are more apprioate than American dates.--Berks105 15:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning
DO NOT move pages under discussion for a move. DISCUSS them instead. Obviously, it's something you need to learn immediately. Charles 03:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

mindless editing
I had added a few facts to the Richard 1st article, which you have removed, please do not edit things unless you have a reason for doing so, I see there are several complaints about you on this page, for personal attacks, random editing, and edit wars. Do not change the article again, i suspect you are just reverting the edit hits from the recent changes page. Please only edit this if you have a relevant contribution, if you wish to discuss the edits i made then use my talk page, otherwise just keep to your own field of expertise, i.e. harry potter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.24.79 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC).