User talk:Someone else/talk2

User talk:Someone else/talk1

Isis, First off, I really like your "Queen Mary" and "Queen Elizabeth" disambiguation pages! Secondly, I note your comments to Deb regarding the will of Henry VIII. Isn't the real difference between the wills of Henry VIII and Edward IV that Henry was granted the authority to appoint his successor by Parliament, while Edward had no such approval? This was recently discussed at, (well, that and realpolitik) but you're the one with the legal expertise. -- Someone else 01:59 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * Please add whatever/whoever you can to the Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Isabella, and Queen Anne pages, the last one of which I haven't even started redoing yet (and don't know when I will because of being behind for my deadline). I think they're very helpful, especially for sorting out the ones who don't have pages of their own.  (BTW, have you been watching the prices of Du Pont Dynasty ISBN 0-8184-0352-7  over the past week?  What a hoot!)


 * The issue on the Mary I of Scotland article isn't what's in the wills or even the legal effect of a will, which seems to be what the site you referenced is about. But on that subject, a will is not some kind of law that's legally binding -- much of what it says is what we call in the trade "hortatory," meaning exhorting (that is, urging) people to do what it says, so "dying wishes" the survivors may feel morally bound to respect but not enforceable in court.  That goes for a king's will, too:  A dead king cannot "rule from the grave" by limiting the current king's power to appoint his own successor.


 * My problem was with User:Deb's again taking out factual information (that Lady Jane's supporters asserted Henry VIII's will as one of the legal bases for her claim) and replacing it with purple prose (Mary's "nurtur[ing] some hope") with the excuse that she doesn't see how Henry's will "could possibly have been used" that way. Her inability to "think" something was done that demonstrably was done should not limit the Wikipedia's reference value.  Our articles should deal in facts and in analyses of those that are derivative, not original with the article's author.  Deb's writing tends to be long on her own characterizations of people's state of mind and/or emotions but short on factual support and analyses by recognized authorities.  (Consider, for example, Anna Leonowens: Does it sound to you more like an encyclopedia article or an assignment for a creative writing class?)


 * My point was that it is historical fact that they used Henry's will as one of their excuses for grabbing the throne. That it was a flimsy excuse (altho no flimsier than the ones Henry VII had used, for example) is not a reason to take it out -- it's a reason to keep it in, because it shows how little legal support they had to have to grasp at that straw.  (As my father used to say, "A poor excuse is better than that one.")  I thought the language used expressed it very nicely in saying they had "exploited" the will that way -- that's what they did, and it's pertinent to the Act of Settlement, whereas Mary's nurturing hopes are not.  Therefore, I'd like to have that material restored. -- isis 06:17 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * I haven't been following the Dupont prices, but it looks like they fell rapidly. Bizarre! And I get your point about the will: it's better to state the reasons people actually used to justify their actions, whether or not they were valid, rather than speculate.  Still it looks like that's been changed back.  I too tend toward terseness rather then floridity; I'm always intrigued by exactly how hard it is to say things that are absolutely true.  I'll try and pay some attention to Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Isabella, and Queen Anne, because it's these sorts of pages that give Wikipedia an advantage over a written encyclopedia. (Though at this point any Marys or Elizabeths not there are probably pretty obscure!! -- Someone else 22:53 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I had to give up on a handful I'd gotten from Google and not identified yet. The one that was really bothering me was a saint called "Queen Elizabeth of Hungary" that I couldn't find was ever married to any king. If you can sort that one out, bless you. -- isis 00:34 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * Hm. Maybe someone promoted the daughter of Andrew II of Hungary and his wife Gertrude of Meran from Landgravine to Queen? She's the only St. Elisabeth of Hungary (1207-1231) I see, but her husband, while also a "saint", was only a Landgraf. Maybe they were making her a "heavenly" queen?  If she's the one, she'd be feeding the poor or turning bread into roses (which is not what I'd try if I were feeding the poor, but what do I know?)  -- Someone else 01:20 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

I know St. Elizabeth, because I chose hers for my Confirmation name back in the 1950s (when I was Catholic), but it's the "queen" that's throwing me: See http://users.erols.com/saintpat/ss/1117.htm#eliz -- isis 01:54 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like a very idiosyncratic "promotion" to queen (the dates match, and a princess must marry well to be Queen (unless she's in Norway)). Charles I Robert of Hungary had a third wife Elzbieta of Poland, so married, she could be an Elisabeth of Hungary, but not as far as I know a saint.  Is she too obscure to list, or should we aspire to including all Queen Elisabeths? -- Someone else

All of them on the list, please, but NOT links for separate articles for the obscure ones. -- isis 02:08 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you've been discussing styles with Tokerboy on the Talk:Josephine-Charlotte of Belgium page. You mention something about Wikipedia convention on the subject, but I can't find any documentation about such a convention. Please help me out here! I have rambled on about the subject a bit on Tokerboy's Talk page, so you might want to read that to know what I'm going on about... Thanks for your help. -- Oliver PEREIRA 23:51 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the only convention on styles is that they shouldn't be part of an article's title. Tokerboy was reacting to articles that had long lists of children and spouses in them, giving styles in full for each instance of each name, which makes for a very cluttered and unreadable article, and which often wound up getting incorporated into links, resulting in improperly named articles.  I think stylistically it makes most sense to give the style and the title exactly once, after the title of the article. For example, "Hortensia of the Phlebians (1854 - 1972), or more fully, Her Most Serene and Excellent Highness Hortensia Clytemnestra Virago Grimzollen, Queen of the Phlebians".  That's a question of taste, though, not convention. --- Someone else 00:06 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. -- Oliver PEREIRA 00:17 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

You having problem with browsers chopping of bottom of articles too? Been there. Added on 'l' to a name on the Irish potato famine page and I inadvertently knocked off a large chunk of the article (which as I had written it over days of research, and the article was now too big because of other people's amendments, left me rather peeved.) I had to call on 172 to do a revert and rescue my beloved missing end of the article! Don't you just hate some browsers. JTD 06:16 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it comes of Internet Explorer using Macintosh's built in "textedit" tool which sets a byte limit of 32,000 characters for a given edit. Very annoying. I'm looking forward to my next Mac, which will be able to run OS X . It's either that or look for another browswer that'll run under OS 8.6! -- Someone else 06:19 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting observation on Otto von Hapsburg. The great thing about Wiki is the amount of information you can learn here. I'll rewrite the reference to cover it. JTD 00:57 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

I've changed the page to update the info re what you said about Otto. I've added in the name of some other Royal Houses. If you get a chance, have a look. You might spot an error, or be able to add in more info if you know it. JTD 02:07 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)


 * Looks good, I'll try and add to it. I've been giving some thought to the whole surname/house name thing and wonder if it may not be useful to describe how surnames came to be and why some people assumed them later than others...but I should look around here to see if there's already a cogent explanation in Wikipedia. -- Someone else 04:41 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

I checked the Wonderful Town CD (CBS-TV version) out of my library a couple of months ago before I added that item about MC Roz. If you haven't heard it, it is really worth the trouble, and it is really ancestral rap. It is my dream for that roots of rap music page that some high-school kid writing a paper will go to the trouble of finding some of that music. Ortolan88 01:42 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
 * Lenny don't write no bad music. It was a great show, very funny, you'll enjoy it, I think, regardless of your Ethel Merman tastes.  Ortolan88

Thanks for the compliment. I don't know is the answer but I suspect it long pre-dated the US constitution. There was a written constitution under Cromwell, so it might have arisen then, or immediately after when it was replaced by a return to the 'unwritten constitution'. Or another possibility is that it wasn't related directly to the US constitution but to that timeframe, when the appearance of nation-states saw an appearance of constitutions (eg, the various French constitutions - it changed so often that they used to say it belonged in the periodicals section of a library! - the early 19th century constitutions of Norway and Sweden, the US constitutions, etc,) But it may be one of these 'how long is a piece of string' arguments, ie, a term that came in sometime but which at this stage no-one has any idea as to when someone first coined it. (I know I have a book here called Modern Constitutions by K.C. Wheare but I cannot find it right now. It might have some info.)

The saga over 211.28.96.8's doctoring of two sites is almost comical. Heads of state are something of a hobby horse for me; I'm currently writing a book on heads of state, so he had the bad luck to tackle the one person on Wiki who can quote from memory section 7 sub paragraph 4 for such and such a constitution, and who worked as a constitutional adviser to both pro- and anti- republican groups during the referendum on a republic in Australia. So the slightest error in constitutional understanding is likely to be picked up by me, and he has made whoppers akin to treating 'Tom and Jerry' cartoons as a real life nature programme. Yikes! JTD 23:41 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Reg Sophia of Nassau, Guess you are right, must be Biebrich..Dan Koehl 03:16 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

A to Q on my page: Yes its nice to slowly start again, having the possibility to participate in this join venture with Someone else interested in weird, historical things like genealogy. Do you notice how different I am since my IP was banned 4 days and I lost my sysop rights? I think every one working as hard as I should banned now and then, this makes you much more reluctant to spend time and work for a community project like this, and using precious bandwith :) !! Dan Koehl 20:04 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind and look over my layman ramblings at circulatory system and fetus? Thanks. AxelBoldt 19:11 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC) - Dear Someone; Thanks for fixing the Bayamon article. I had it as 'holding bridge' cause thats how those bridges are called in Spanish...'Puente Colgante'..hehehehe

But I didnt know the right way to call them in English, so your change helps.

Thanks, and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio el loco de las chicas..LOL (yeah, I wish I was that!)


 * Yes :), I was pissed off with a guy, and told him from my hart my sincere feelings. he has been going on with edit wars for three days now on the Swedish wikipedia, just take look there, on the recent changes. Some neonazi articles are probably over 80 copys now. "Trolls rule" Dan Koehl 04:22 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with fetus and circulatory system. Regarding terms for anatomical location: what exactly is "anatomical position"? I figure the person is standing, but are the arms hanging down, or does it matter? Cheers, AxelBoldt 05:34 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hi! I left a message on the Papal Infallibility issue on the relevant talk page and I am too knackered to re-type it!!! Thanks re the papal tiara page. I'm rather chuffed with how it turned out. I discovered one of the pics may have copyright issues so I have dumped it. All the others seem fine; they are regularly used, some of them ancient, and feature in many cases on websites that wouldn't possibly have received permission to use them if they were still covered by copyright. One I'm not sure about was copyrighted in 1912, but I guess the chance on the original photographer turning up and screaming 'that's my picture' are rather slight! And the coats of arms are hardly copyright, given that they are used on hundreds of church documents, by parishes, dioceses, websites. etc. (If they are, someone must be making a blooming fortune!) Re the question of 'can the crowns be separated?' the answer is no. They actually have a solid silver interior with the gold decoration screwed on in pieces, not as separate 'crowns'. I suppose you could unscrew the bits off: that's what Napoleon's soldiers did to the old tiaras in the early 1800s when they nicked them all (hence Napoleon's 'gift' of a new tiara to the pope!) Basically they come as one unit. Apparently they are quite heavy, one reason why 'delicate' Pope Paul was given a lightweight (and rather hideous) one. (I know Queen Elizabeth spends hours before the state opening of parliament wearing hers around the palace to get used to the weight. The image of Liz in front of the mirror, wearing her dressing gown, cleaning her teeth while wearing a crown is priceless. Or she eating her cornflakes with a crown on her head! But that's what she does (ok, maybe not literally!) to get used to the weight.) I must admit, having researched the papal tiaras, I'd almost love to see the next pope wearing one. They are rather spectacular looking head-pieces. And it would beat wearing a modern mitre with a squiggle on the front, which is what some of them look like. God, I am rambling. Time to get some sleep. I had planned to go to bed five hours ago. JTD 07:47 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Oh no. Now I'm going to go to bed with images of the theme music from 'top cat' (courtesy of Tuf Kat') while someone plays a game or 're-arrange the tiaras'! I can just see the game show host: 'you have thirty seconds to form Gregory XVI's 1834 tiara from the bits on the table in front of you. Your time starts now!' (even worse, its Pope John Paul being given the challenge. 'And if you win, no war in Iraq. If you lose, Your Holiness, KAAABOOOM! George W. is away!''
 * Mwa-ha-ha!!! That was my plan the entire time. (BTW, this Top Cat thing is apparently big in England, though I have no idea what everyone's talking about). Tuf-Kat
 * Tuf: I am sad to say that the Top Cat thing is PROBABLY more an older/younger rather than a British/American thing. Those old enough to remember the cartoon (and the absolutely infectious theme song) will think of it on seeing your new moniker.  It was the first thing I thought of, too. (And I am...ahem.. of a certain age). -- Someone else 08:23 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think it was called Boss Cat in the UK


 * I always knew him as "Top Cat", even if the song did say "Boss Cat", although I don't recall why... I can't really remember that far back... It's all very hazy... -- Oliver P. 21:44 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * If "Top Cat"'s "close friends get to call him T.C.", do "Boss Cat"'s "close friends get to call him B.C."? -- Someone else