User talk:The Duke of Waltham/Archive 7

This is the seventh archive of The Duke of Waltham's talk page. Stored on this page are mostly brief communications from a time of reduced activity on the Duke's part, with an interlude of dramatic talks about the future of the biography serving as the ducal user page. Here are archived discussions beginning and ending in the time period from 20 February 2009 to 25 December 2014.

Archiving so far took place on 21 October 2009, 3 August 2010, 28 November 2012, 17 November 2013 and 16 July 2016.

H. Cartwright

Bows low
His Grace's most humble servant wishes him a happy and productive autumn during His absence from Wikipedia. Tony  (talk)  15:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Tony, but... Autumn? Gee, what are you, Australian? :-D
 * The funny thing is that the very act of making my absence official has led me to increase my levels of activity (for the first time after almost four months); I expect my removing it (whenever I do so) to be a counter-motive for contribution. (sigh) Well, at least I have my back covered; if I only undertake minor projects and restrict myself to small-time editing, I can continue in this low-activity mode for some time.
 * Now that I think of it, perhaps a notice saying exactly that would be more appropriate.
 * Hmm... Waltham, The Duke of 02:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * H. Cartwright—Please pass on this message to His Grace from His most humble servant: "I made a horrid error in using a hemispherically specific epithet. Please accept my apologies." Tony   (talk)  12:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting
Given His Grace's very strong opposition to any form of date autoformatting, I would invite him to include User:Ohconfucius/Userboxes/Piggy as as userbox, whether by copying the code or by transclusion. I am certain His Grace can equally see the dubious merits which cosmetics could bring to pigs. It should be noted that such declaration would automatically include His Grace in the Category:Wikipedians opposed to date-autoformatting. Your obedient servant, Ohconfucius (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This userbox expresses my feelings on date auto-formatting very accurately, and I'll be glad to add it to my collection. I wasn't sure where exactly to put it, and indeed, I haven't tended to my userspace for quite some time, but for now I think you'll be satisfied to see it prominently displayed on this very page.
 * Let's see what effect it will have on the people who visit—not many now, but the numbers will pick up eventually.
 * Keep up the good work, Ohconfucius! Waltham, The Duke of 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Could I remind His Grace that the polls are now open. Thank you for your attention. Your humble servant, Ohconfucius (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration
I hope you don't mind, but I have modeled my user page after yours. Duchess of Bathwick (talk · contribs) 00:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am flattered, Your Grace. Good luck on your Wikipedia career.
 * (Note: I am not sure whether the references are hidden by choice, but for them to appear, you need to insert a  tag into your page—preferably in a "Notes" or "Footnotes" section at the bottom. Also, you can name references, so that you can reuse them instead of duplicating them. As you may have noticed, Duchess, referencing is something of a science for Wikipedia.) Waltham, The Duke of 08:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

db-move
Hi there. Just a note, please remember to always place templates on redirects above the "#REDIRECT Target page name" -part. Regards  So Why  16:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure about that; I thought I'd rather leave the notice invisible for casual readers. Thank you for letting me know about proper practice, as well as taking care of the pages. Waltham, The Duke of 17:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the way you did it, the notice did not show up and with it the reviewing admin has to edit the page first to find out about it. It's making it a bit complicated ;-)  So Why  18:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

gd spot
Good investigative work. I've put it up for CSD.  DJR  ( T ) 15:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

DAFMM
Ok then. Everyone likes different things.

With compliments.

DAFMM

Page title
Has His Grace noticed how the page-title banners on the Userpage and the Talkpage have suddenly become offset? I wonder what the cause of it may be? Ohconfucius (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have noticed nothing—what browser are you using? Whatever the problem is, it probably has something to do with the template I use to superimpose my own titles over the proper names of the pages, User:One/Title. It does appear to have been edited recently. Waltham, The Duke of 18:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit reversions--I think you missed
Hi there, Duke! In a recent edit reversion, you addressed MChavez and mentioned his recent addition of a paragraph to the section of the Wikipedia MoS discussing the usage of quotation marks with other punctuation. However, the edits that you actually reverted were not directly concerned with this matter (or with MChavez) but rather with whether a different paragraph within the section should be phrased in the imperative or in the indicative. The matter had already been discussed on the talk page, but if you wish to comment or contribute, then your $0.02 is certainly welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

En dashes in categories
His Grace's attention is drawn to this, a matter on which I believe He has expertise. Tony  (talk)  08:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Concern for His Grace's welfare
Cartwright: What have you done to His Grace? He has not been himself lately. Are you looking after him properly? I have noticed that since his recent, unfortunate online dalliance with a member of the opposite sex, that his energy in Wikipedia has flagged. Have you not forgiven him? I am seriously considering reporting your failure to deal appropriately with this situation to the cabal. Yours in dismay. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am touched by your interest, Geronimo20, and should like to assuage your worries about my well-being. I do not understand your reference to this dalliance you seem to have perceived—although I assure you that the "opposite sex" specification is superfluous—but I do agree that it is indeed most disappointing of Mr Cartwright to have neglected his duties in this manner. On the other hand, one might argue that it is not entirely surprising, especially considering the particular circumstances, and the lacking supervision he has been experiencing as a result thereof. You see, I have been unable to reply until now because I have been recuperating from the wounds inflicted upon me by a deranged admirer, who attempted to murder me with a fountain pen. I fear that the scars on my arm and chest are rather unsightly, and indeed rather resemble unsuccessful tattoos, although they are mercifully small and will offer me something more interesting than the weather to talk about in social functions. In any case, I have taken advantage of the opportunity to interrupt my hectic schedule, including most Wikipedia activities, and enjoy some peace of mind in the exotic seclusion of Tresco, in the Isles of Scilly. That is not to say that I have abandoned all my editing undertakings, or that I do not intend to resume work on them in due course, but I have yet to decide when I shall increase my level of involvement to anything close to my older patterns. Waltham, The Duke of 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you a real Duke?
I came accross your username by chance, however i cant find saying that there is an actual Duke of Waltham? Are you really a Duke? If not why go to the trouble of attempting to appear as one? 80.47.185.251 (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I am a real duke. Google is clearly sabotaging me. They feel threatened by my power... Waltham, The Duke of 01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope His Grace is a real Duke. I aspire to be a real Duke just like him when I grow up.
 *  just Eleos  19:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's something I don't hear a lot these days, Eleos. I'll put in a good word for you next time I see the Queen. Waltham, The Duke of 21:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this impudence in His Grace's presence? I do hope not. Tony   (talk)  09:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sure the gentleman (or lady?) has a perfectly good reason for thinking that I might be a fraud. After all, there are many of them out there, and I do use the alias "Dr Sigmund Fraud" from time to time, as I state on my user page. All the same, I reject all insinuations about my right to use these titles, and I wish to give the dear IP my assurance that there is no other Duke of Waltham in this world. Waltham, The Duke of 10:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your Grace is most kind. I hope that your words might convince her majesty to restore the Duchy of Teck to my family, as we had previously discussed.
 *  just Eleos  15:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it vexing that real people still talk in such a way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.67.108 (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Attention
I regret to inform His Grace that the manner in which he presents himself on this website has become the subject of discussion at the so-called "Help desk", more specifically here. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is rather upsetting. I didn't know there were still people who were annoyed by my wig.
 * Anyway, this appears to have been resolved. Thank you for the notification, Decltype. Waltham, The Duke of 09:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
Dear Cartwright, I would be obliged if you would inform his Grace that he is now a "rollbacker", in recognition of his experience and care whilst editing. I would respectfully suggest that you read WP:Rollback feature to him one morning whilst he eats his kippers, to ensure that his Grace does not offend the customary practices when using the rollback feature. Should this feature not prove to be something that his Grace wishes to possess, I (or any other administrator) will remove it upon request. Yours, etc. BencherliteTalk 22:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for the delay in responding, Mr Bencherlite, but His Grace hadn't been in the mood for kipper until this morning. The Duke wishes me to thank you on his behalf for your kind consideration, and to inform you that there are two reasons why he has not applied for the feature so far (in case you are surprised): firstly, he uses Twinkle (although in practice only to speed up warnings to vandals); and secondly, he almost always encounters single edits which need reversion, and had not been aware until now of the fact that even such edits can be sped up by the rollback feature. His Grace assures you that he intends to make prudent use of this feature, which he expects will help him in his occasional vandal-fighting. Finally, in order to thank you for your services and gain the opportunity to know better one of the hard-working Wikipedians from London, he extends to you an open invitation for afternoon tea in his Kensington Gate townhouse. (Please check with me a day or two earlier to avoid scheduling conflicts.) He would consider your attendance an honour.
 * Yours sincerely, H. Cartwright, on behalf of the Duke of Waltham 00:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Alarm bells
Dear Cartwright

Please draw to His Grace's attention that apparently rude colonials (possibly from across the Atlantic) have impugned His Grace's personal pages, questioning, inter alia, whether He is indeed a duke, and whether He Himself has performed the edits to His name. Is such disrespect a symptom of modern anglophone society's total engagement with its own selfish consumerist desires? Have these desires blinded it to the proper place of commoners? Tony  (talk)  12:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

S-par and Northern Ireland
I've proposed a few new parameters to s-par following a request - as the names here may set precedent for naming defunct parliaments in the s-par template, please stop by sometime in the next few days if you have any comments. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Birthday
Dear Cartwright,

Kindly convey my advance salutations on the occasion of His Grace's forthcoming birthday. Yours sincerely, Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 05:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The slimy little bastard made sure I only received your salutations on the day. Even so, thank you for the kind gesture. Have a happy New Year! Waltham, The Duke of 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
It was, thank you! Waltham, The Duke of 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your Grace, I missed your birthday again. At least it's still 1 January in parts of the world. My best wishes to you. Tony   (talk)  00:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Humble reminder
Cartwright, please remind His Grace that his subjects are eagerly awaiting the announcement of the noble winner of the January 2010 SILLIWILI awards, for which there is quite a good variety of nominations to choose from. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, sir, but His Grace has had an understanding with the director of the competition that the judging would take place bimonthly. The Duke is not entirely unprepared to consider changing this to monthly, but you must understand that an examination period is under way and there are certain limits as to how fast a judging would be completed under the present circumstances while adhering to the high standards set by His Grace. If you wish to make any such proposition, or simply ask for a clarification, you are advised to contact said director.
 * Have a good day.
 * H. Cartwright, on behalf of the Duke of Waltham 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cartwright, please convey my deepest apologies to His Grace for distracting him from his duties. A clarification has been made, and I will not bother you any longer. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Distracting him? He's still playing mini-golf in his study; you've only managed to waste my time, as if I didn't have enough to do al
 * You are welcome, sir. His Grace and I are glad to be of assistance.
 * H. Cartwright, on behalf of the Duke of Waltham 03:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Silliwili awards
Dear Mr Cartwright: Please pass on to His Grace a reminder that His subjects await the announcement of the Silliwili awards for January and February. It would be nice to know, say, within a week. Tony  (talk)  09:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The awards...? Ah, yes, of course.
 * S***, I was supposed to have told him about that two days ago. S***, s***, s***.
 * (smiles) You needn't have troubled yourself, sir; I assure you that His Grace is working hard on the selection of the contest's winner, and that the results will indeed be published within the first week of March. Yes, I have His Grace's word on this. Of course. Thank you, sir. Have a nice day too.
 * Now, let's see... Where did I put the phone number of Boodle's?
 * H. Cartwright, on behalf of the Duke of Waltham 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Error in Reference
The reference for this statement: "In January 2002, the Duke of Waltham was appointed by Queen Elizabeth II a Knight Grand Cross in the Most Southern and Most Noble Order of the Penguin for his services to the British Antarctic Territory.[3]" appears to be incorrect.

The BBC News article lacks mention of the Duke of Waltham's appointment. There are MBE's for "services to the Staffordshire Millennium Embroideries" and MBE's for "services to the Sugar Beet Industry" however. Uncle uncle uncle 22:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How odd... I see that the Order of the Penguin is not mentioned at all. Mark my words, sir; this is Argentine propaganda. Waltham, The Duke of 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured article review/Anschluss/archive1
Started this for you. If you have anything to add on to my nominating statement, please feel free to do so. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. I intended to read the article again and perhaps make a comment, which is why it has taken me so long to reply. In the end... I haven't read it yet. We'll see. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 06:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sign
No problem. Alakasam 21:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Palace of Westminster
Hello Duke. I may be able to send you the paper by Boase listed in User:The Duke of Waltham/Palace of Westminster workshop if you can send me a Wikipedia email containing your actual email address. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your kind offer, Mr Johnston, and I thank you for it. However, I was given access to the document just a few hours ago. I suppose a couple of updates are in order; that talk page certainly seems to receive a lot of traffic. Waltham, The Duke of 04:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

House of Commons of the United Kingdom edit
Hi, I recently changed what I thought was an error in this page, and noticed that you changed it back. The phrasing seemed very strange, could you explain why this is correct under the conventions to which you referred in your edit summary? Thanks, and sorry to be a pain.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  16:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all; your question is perfectly reasonable. If you will have a look at Forms of address in the United Kingdom, you will notice that many of the styles are not used as mere adjectives but have a degree of grammatical independence: "The Most Honourable The Marquess of Bath" or "The Most Reverend and Right Honourable The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury"—although it wouldn't be correct, you can perhaps picture a comma between the style and the rest of the title. In general, it could be said that, wherever the main title includes the definite article, it retains it in the full style, and this is the case with "The Commons [...] in Parliament Assembled". Waltham, The Duke of 16:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation; my main confusion was the application of these titles to a body (i.e. the house of commons), and that based on your explanation, I assume that The Commons is its title, as well as The Honourable since that is the title give to each member of the house of commons. That makes sense now; thanks again for the explanation.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the situation is slightly different, though I can certainly appreciate that the conventions of the House of Commons tend to confuse people in this respect. The usage of "Honourable" for MPs is strictly parliamentary, and such styles are only used in the House of Commons itself; being a Member of Parliament does not entitle one to social use of the style "The Honourable", which is normally reserved for the children of Barons and Viscounts and the younger (i.e. all but the eldest) sons of Earls.
 * In general, members of a group which is entitled to a certain style (e.g. "The Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths" or "The Honourable Artillery Company") are not necessarily entitled themselves to a style, much less the same style. If there is a style for members, it is usually lower: compare "Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council" with the use of "The Right Honourable" for Privy Counsellors. Waltham, The Duke of 15:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Message for His Grace
Cartwright, please forward this message to Waltham: does He intend to judge the Silliwili entries for the past three months, or is His position thus that He would prefer to leave it another month? If so, I could post a note at the discussion page. Tony  (talk)  14:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

MBE again
Hello - I mentioned above my concerns about the Most Noble Order of the Penguin.

Now I see that the queen actually does give out MBE's for a great many actions: "The Queen presents milkman Tony Fowler, dressed in a cow-themed suit, with an MBE at Buckingham Palace today" and "Mr Fowler won his MBE for helping police catch a string of criminals by keeping a lookout for suspicious behaviour on his milk run"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285322/Crime-fighting-milkman-receives-MBE-Queen-dressed-cow.html

Uncle uncle uncle 03:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Italian Nobility
Hello Your Grace, I wrote on the talk page of Template:s-start nobedoy did what I was asking for, so as I see you are Benevolent Dictator of SBS, I come to you.

The thing is that the parameter Italian nobility in s-reg is incorrect. As for British nobility, you have all the parameters for the different peerages, Italy has only been a unified country since 1861. Then, I would like someone (I don't know sure if yuo can do it) to set up the following parameters:


 * Neapolitan nobility for titles of the Kingdom of Naples (1282-1826), ex: Duke of Atri or Prince of Belmonte
 * Sicilian nobility for titles of the Kingdom of Sicily (1130-1816), ex: Duke of Bivona
 * Nobility of the Two Sicilies for titles of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (1816-1861), ex: Duke of Ripalda
 * Parmesan nobility for titles of the Duchy of Parma (1545-1859), ex: Marquis of the Borghetto
 * Tuscan nobility for titles of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany (1569 - 1859), ex: Prince of San Donato
 * Papal nobility for titles granted by the Popes, ex: Prince of Civitella-Cesi
 * Savoyard nobility for titles of the Duchy of Savoy (1416 – 1718), ex: Count of Villafranca
 * Sardinian nobility for titles of the Kingdom of Sardinia (1323 - 1861), ex: Prince of Anglona
 * Milanese nobility for titles of the Duchy of Milan (1395–1797)
 * Modenese nobility for titles of the Duchy of Modena (1452 - 1859)

Italian nobility should only be for titles of the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy (ex: Duke of Lodi) and of the Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946) (ex: Duke of Castel Duino or Duke of Addis Abeba). This distinction is necessary, because all these were different states, with differents monarchs and different succesion laws. Thank you --Paliano (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SILLIWILI
Is silliwili active? It's now July, and March has not been decided...  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 01:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The contest is indeed active, although my own inactivity has unfortunately caused judging to be suspended in the last few months. It seems that this is about to change, however. Waltham, The Duke of 16:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

New ubox and top-icon for WikiGryphons

 * Please forgive the talk page spam. There are new userbox and topicon selections for editors who identify themselves as WikiGryphons; see User:Ling.Nut/Gryphontopicon2 and Template:User wikipedia/Gryphon2. Cheers! • Ling.Nut 02:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem; I don't receive much of it, anyway. Now, I might use the top-icon, but I'll have to think about it... Waltham, The Duke of 07:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed improvement to watchlists
Hello. I have revived a discussion you took part in back in 2008. It's about improving watchlists to allow a little more user control. Perhaps you would like to contribute? --bodnotbod (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps... We'll see if I'll have something useful to say, but I am definitely interested in following the discussion. Thank you for the heads-up. Waltham, The Duke of 09:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

His Grace
I remember that in some other Talk page His Grace said he became an editor after finding that an article His Grace read wasn't very good. I'm developing a project to help new editors, and would be grateful if His Grace would give his experience and advice at User_talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors --Philcha (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have just remembered that His Grace showed interest in poor quality articles. --Philcha (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't remember exactly how or why I started editing (what I said in that discussion was that I assume most editors started contributing that way—I was speaking from extensive second-hand experience). What I know is that I discovered Wikipedia through a mirror, and that some time later I started editing; there is a large blank between these two events, and I cannot say whether I made some edits anonymously before creating my previous account, though I do remember that I spent some time reading whatever I could find in the way of policies and guidelines (which were certainly not as substantial in 2004 as they are today). In any case, I spent most of my early Wikipedian career as a WikiGnome, and later also as a participant in project discussions, with varying results. It is easy to imagine that I started editing when I noticed a few typos littering an article, or that certain things were out of order and I could tidy them up. I still like this kind of work, though I no longer dismiss reference work as being beyond my capabilities. However, I observed the workings of article-writing for years before starting to contribute content myself, and so I really cannot contribute much to your project. Still, interesting essay; it looks quite helpful, especially thanks to its structure and tone. Waltham, The Duke of 23:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Filter out the ugliest ducklings
Yo Waltham - please read my last entry on the (proposals) page - based on 10 random articles. View the 10 articles and my comments and consider it my revision. - please reply on that page - regards Mark  Dask 17:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Noted. I'll have a look as soon as I can. Waltham, The Duke of 14:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Mmmm - the proposal has moved on since then and I had hoped for your further contribution - no matter - Mark  Dask 17:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge
Mr Cartwright, I've just edited the succession box on the article Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge and amn't sure how best to handle that three rows, all separated by headers, have the same successor (his son, Prince George, Duke of Cambridge). I've posted this to the article's Talk: page, where I would like to canvas opinion. If you could make any suggestions His Grace might have in that place, I would be most grateful. Of course, if His Grace has any comments he would like to make that are not pertinent to that issue, then I would be pleased to see them on mine own Talk: page. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * His Grace will look into it tomorrow. H. Cartwright, on behalf of the Duke of Waltham 18:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes relating to music charts
Hi, you were kind enough to respond to an inquiry I posted on the SBS talk page back in August. I was wondering what you think of the use of succession on articles for songs and albums such as I Will Always Love You, Tik Tok, and The E.N.D.. There is currently on RFC taking place regarding their use at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts), and a third-party neutral opinion would be greatly appreciated. At this time, I'm just hoping to get resolution on whether they are even needed for these types of articles regarding, and deal with guidelines and stylizing afterwards should the outcome favor them. The argument is pretty much down the middle unfortunately. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have not been able to look at it yet. I hope to do so soon, though I cannot promise anything—there are many distractions these days... Waltham, The Duke of 23:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wessex children NPOV
Hullo there. I have opened a new discussion about the styling of HRH The Earl of Wessex's children: here because their articles are currently in violation of the NPOV policy. Do please drop by and have your say (and feel free to pass on the word to other concerned parties!) DBD 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that my response to your message has been something of a disappointment (it's a common pattern these months). I had a look at the discussion a few days after you posted here, but by the time I found the opportunity to comment on the page, it was already too late. For all it's worth, I believe that the two articles in their current state are perfectly acceptable with regards to the issue you have brought up. Waltham, The Duke of 00:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User script listing cleanup project
I'm leaving this message for known script authors, recent contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, and those who've shown interest in user scripts.

This scripts listing page is in dire need of cleanup. To facilitate this, I've created a new draft listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup. You're invited to list scripts you know to be currently working and relevant. Eventually this draft page can replace the current scripts listing.

If you'd like to comment or collaborate on this proposal, see the discussion I started here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts#Scripts listing cleanup project. Thanks! Equazcion ( talk ) 04:50, 25 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted
I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 23:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect page tabs
I came across your village pump proposal regarding the article tab on redirects. I was searching to see if my complaint had been voiced before, and to my dismay it had, and four years ago. Based what little discussion there was then, I'm not sure I want to pursue the matter anymore, but it does seem like something that ought to be fixed, and easily so. What are you thoughts? BigNate37(T) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten about this entirely... I don't believe things have changed much with regards to the functional aspect of redirects, and in this sense my proposal retains much of its original value. It is also my impression (although I haven't frequented there for a while) that the extent of discussion that proposals receive at the village pump often depends on who happens to be watching, so it's partly a matter of luck. In any case, people's views may have changed after four-and-a-half years, so I think it's worth putting this out there and seeing what happens. I agree that one's expectations ought to be limited, but one never knows, right? Waltham, The Duke of 00:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

New e-mail from Gareth Griffith-Jones
Rather cryptic, but I am sure you will understand.

(By the way, do you remember the elypsis thread you started? I had a little to contribute there.)  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is cryptic, especially considering that I saw it after completing my reply on the talk page. If you meant to draw my attention to your post there, you didn't have to (I watch the page).
 * And yes, I do remember that thread; it's a pity that it led nowhere, but I appreciate your contribution nonetheless, Mr Griffith-Jones. I don't spend much time at the MoS nowadays (not that I've ever had much of an impact there), but I have little reason to believe much has changed since the days I did spend a lot of time in that forum, for better or for worse. Waltham, The Duke of 11:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

did you vote?
hi there, your vote in ArbCom elections triggered a spoof CSRF alarm. Would you be so kind as to please confirm that you actually voted? :) Apologies for the inconvenience. Pundit | utter  07:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, just popping in. Could you confirm you did vote? If we don't hear from you, we'll have to assume your connection was spoofed and strike your vote, so it would be really nice to hear that isn't the case. Thanks.  MBisanz  talk 14:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is most curious... I hope I am not too late in confirming that I did vote, in the last day before the polls closed. It so happens that I've been off-line for a week (an unusually long time for me), so I've only just noticed this. I'm leaving a note on both your talk pages to make sure you see my reply as soon as possible. Waltham, The Duke of 15:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've seen the note and sent it off the the right people.  MBisanz  talk 15:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt response. I see this has happened to several people, but most of them confirmed their vote within a day or two, rather than five; do you know if my vote has been counted? I understand the results have not been announced yet, so I think I might be safe in this regard. Waltham, The Duke of 16:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * According to my view of the system's backend, your vote has been counted. I've emailed the people who actually strike the votes, so unless they manage to find your name on-wiki and strike it without checking their own email, you'll be fine.  MBisanz  talk 17:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is excellent news indeed. Thank you for your diligent efforts, Mr Bisanz. Waltham, The Duke of 17:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Heads-up
Another user had copy/pasted your userpage contents, and it was deleted in part due to WP:FAKEARTICLE, I'm certain that someone has provided you the same warnings in the past - indeed, the "see also" at the top of your userpage specifically calls your userpage an article, which is inappropriate. From what I see, although we have some leniency on userpages, fake articles are not permissible (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The hat is not the only problem :-) My recommendation - move it to a personal essay and mark it humour. I believe it will soon be WP:MFD's as WP:UP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What would you think if it was left where it is but tagged with User page and Humor? Ryan Vesey 18:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well Ryan, you've probably read my user talkpage in the last 15 minutes ... it's not necessarily how I would feel, more like others in the community apparently (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Thank you for your polite note, Mr Wilkins. As I see it, WP:FAKEARTICLE seems more concerned with copies of articles or revisions which have been deleted in the mainspace (or ought to be moved thereto) than with what is very clearly a spoof article of purely humorous character and intent (and marked as such at the bottom). It has been in place for over six years, and has drawn negative attention only once before now—and on that occasion I was supported by several disinterested editors. However, I take your point about the hatnote and I have therefore removed it, in the hopes that no further action on this matter will be necessary. Waltham, The Duke of 18:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have corrected the indentation of my message; I hadn't read any follow-up comments before posting it, and the last thing I wish to come across as is intransigent. That said, I do believe there are all sorts of obvious signs throughout the page that indicate its status as a spoof article, including the title, the icon at the top and the box at the bottom, not to mention the ridiculousness of the text itself. It would take the most cursory of readings and a complete lack of familiarity with Wikipedia for one to be fooled. If someone less amused by you were to nominate my user page for deletion, I'd be prepared to defend it at MfD; as it stands, I have no intention of making any further changes—unless they make it funnier, of course. Waltham, The Duke of 18:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your userpage is an obvious hoax that is unsuited to retention in a serious encyclopedia. I have therefore speedily deleted it, per the G3 criterion for speedy deletion. If you wish to recover any of the older revisions to your userpage that do not contain the hoax material, you may ask any administrator to provide you with it. Regards, AGK  [•] 20:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * AGK, I strongly dispute that G3 applies, and don't see the point of insulting a long term editor with such an accusation. Please take it to MFD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Floq here and hadn't realized that he had undeleted the article when I posted on your talk page. Take it to MfD. Ryan Vesey 20:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is probably a misunderstanding; I am sure AGK only meant the speedy deletion of my page as a good-faith hoax. A very meta one, as is appropriate when the Duke of Waltham is concerned. Waltham, The Duke of 20:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite so, AGK is renowned for profoundly subtle wit. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that there are claims (including cited ones), and the userpage directly follows the MOS for an article, it does violate WP:UP and WP:FAKEARTICLE - of that there is no doubt. Seeing as you have already set a (bad) example for at least one other editor who is now blocked because if it, doing the right thing is the right thing to do. I think the suggestion (subtle or not) from your colleagues above is fix it yourself ASAP, or deletion one way or another is inevitable (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Blaming any portion of that editor's behavior on DoW "setting a bad example" is stupid. That user is 95% responsible for their behavior; the other 5% can be distributed among several editors - including me, I suppose, for enabling them for one more day - but none of it is on DoW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not editing Wikipedia as much as I'd like—indeed, I have recently realised to my great surprise that I am editing Commons more nowadays—and the part of that effort that I expend on my user page is minimal: I had barely spent a thought on that page in the three years preceding this unfortunate affair. I do realise now that my use of a real citation and another that looks real was ill-advised, and I have therefore removed the former and altered the latter (I think it's actually an improvement). With the same edit I have also added the Small Humour Disclaimer at the top of the page. I am not saying, of course, that this little icon allows me to violate guidelines at will, but it does show to anyone careless enough to ignore all the other signs that no, this is page is neither an article nor an attempt to retain content that would normally be deleted due to notability, neutrality or verifiability concerns. But is my page in violation of guidelines in the first place? I maintain that it is not.

Thanks to the researcher's closest on-wiki friend (after money, which is everyone's closest friend everywhere), I have found that the guideline's current phrasing derives, with negligible subsequent additions, from an edit by FT2 on 20 August 2010, which in turn originates in this discussion. The previous phrasing of the section in question dates to April 2007, and it reveals that the intention of the legislators, as it were, was to stop editors from posting in their userspace content that had been rejected from the mainspace (or would be if posted) in a manner simulating the mainspace. That phrasing, which until 2010 survived intact, was changed mostly for purposes of readability, and the relevant discussion indicates no change of thinking behind the guideline.

In conclusion, the phrasing of the guideline needs to be refined in order to reflect more precisely its true purpose; if the community believes that spoof articles actually ought to be disallowed, it needs to make such a decision, because no discussion on this subject has been held yet. The people responsible for the guideline as it currently stands clearly did not had the likes of my user page in mind, and that it is considered to fall afoul of the guideline must be seen as an unintended consequence of the specific phrasing. This matter ought to be discussed on the guideline's talk page, and if someone else does not raise the subject there, I intend to do so myself. Waltham, The Duke of 17:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I discovered this user page a few years ago when I was still doing things with WP:SBS on a regular basis. In my own view, it is plainly a user page, not an article. Additionally, it serves a useful purpose - providing a lighthearted picture of the wiki in a time when it is increasingly forgetting that instruction creep is something to be avoided. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you again, Philosopher. I might amend your sentence to "at a time when things were done at WP:SBS on a regular basis"... It's been quite deserted for ages. Even I tend to forget about it; I'm supposed to improve the guidelines but I'm only half-way through. (I still edit boxes often, though.) There are also some technical improvements that could be done to the templates, but I'd need help with that. I'll be happy to learn the programming language for the templates when it is finally developed, but until that happens I'll try to avoid things with triple curly brackets in them. Waltham, The Duke of 18:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop by and say "thank you" for handling this discussion in a cool and calm manner. Many editors get really touchy when their userpage content is challenged (I won't cite examples, but I presume you're aware of at least one), and the fact that you're engaging politely and logically on this is something I wanted to call out as a good example to other editors who may find themselves in a similar situation. Regardless of what happens to the page (I personally find it entertaining and well done and hope it's kept), you have my respect for keeping your cool. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words, 28bytes. I am not a person for hysterics and I avoid ANI like the plague; whatever flair for drama I might possess I exhaust on my ducal persona and the occasional bursts of pomposity associated with it. I do admit that I might have responded a bit more impulsively had the page's deletion not been swiftly reverted, but it helps that I have time in my hands to write well-considered replies. It also helps that I lost the taste for the more social-network-like aspects of Wikipedia several years ago: I am very fond of my user page, but I don't ascribe to it the importance I used to. I must be getting old... Waltham, The Duke of 20:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Avoiding AN/I like the plague is an excellent instinct. :) 28bytes (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Duke: In favour of using MFD, would you be amendable to having a message like [ this one] on your userpage? Such a message box is suitably inconspicuous, but still tells a reader that the page is not a serious article in a way that the tiny humour icon in the top right corner never could. Regards, AGK  [•] 13:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How about trying {{DISPLAYTITLE:The Duke of Waltham}}, for good measure? -- Trevj (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC) (Suggestion struck, per appearance in search engine results raised at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Duke of Waltham.) -- Trevj (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, your Grace. I've only skimmed the discussion above; not sure if anybody has already suggested this humour template for your userpage. Please see what you think. AGK will hardly object to it as tiny, anyway. Humbly, Bishonen &#124; talk 13:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC).
 * P.S. If you don't like that one in the context, you might try putting in a request for a personalised template to User:Darwinbish, per the top of her talkpage. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Greetings, Bishonen. I had not been aware of this template before, and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. It is quite amusing, although you will probably understand why I feel it is unsuitable for the kind of user page I wish to maintain. I do have one custom template in mind, which I might possibly use for that purpose, but for the time being I'll try to get on without one.
 * In case you are interested, the bulk of the discussion has been held here, though it appears to be fizzing out. That said, this unfortunate affair has had some positive consequences: my user page has been improved, and page views have gone through the roof. My sponsors will be most pleased. Waltham, The Duke of 13:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It has only "fizzled" as we're waiting for you to return and make the change as the obvious consensus says that this needs to be done. As we recognize that not everyone edits Wikipedia 24/7, we have awaited your return. Now you're back - we all look forward to your change to bring the userpage into line. Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your patience but I confess I find your response surprising; this reply of mine does not seem to have been noticed. I also doubt this consensus you are talking about; to speak of the more recent comments, SarekOfVulcan does not appear to consider such changes necessary and Black Kite qualified his response; the newcomer Clarytone, on the other hand, seems to favour the page's deletion or removal over some other compromise. Waltham, The Duke of 13:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Newcomer? Sorry I missed the discussion there. I suppose I did not watch that page. I will join in the discussion soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarytone (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your account is new, so you might as well be a newcomer to Wikipedia; you claim to be an old editor, but your tendency not to sign your comments seems to indicate otherwise. Waltham, The Duke of 17:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Or he has not been active since the beginning of Wikipedia, when signing one's posts with four tildes was not required or even conventional. AGK  [•] 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point; I suppose I didn't imagine I'd ever find myself talking with members of that generation of editors. And my first edits were made in 2004 (with another account), so I am not exactly new here... I apologise to Clarytone for my lack of good faith. Waltham, The Duke of 17:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I was active here many, many years back. I don't remember the four tildes signing, and I certainly don't remember a SineBot. Clarytone (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Maybe the SineBot should automatically add the signature instead of the unsigned notice? For the same effort expended, one could have cleaner talk pages, and the editors do not have to remember or press those extra keystrokes. Clarytone (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Duke
You've got mail! :)

Clarytone (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Clarytone. Your user account is new, so the name is unfamiliar to me; am I to deduce that you are the RD whose SS-related e-mail I received on 28th ultimo? Of all the recent messages in my inbox this is the only one requiring a reply; if it is not the one to which you are referring, then you have most likely sent yours to an account I am no longer using. In any case, that was a week ago today, so I can hardly be accused of being negligent with my correspondence, especially taking into consideration both the seriousness of that proposal, which I need to study carefully, and the fact that in my current address I do not enjoy the benefits of a permanent domestic telephone line. Waltham, The Duke of 13:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is indeed the one. And it is indeed serious. One week is kind of long for you, isn't it? When I had seen you around on that other website, you were almost constantly on the internet, almost all the time. :) Anyway, let me know via a reply email what your position on that is going to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarytone (talk • contribs) 16:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I have changed a lot since then. Perhaps not in all respects, but certainly in my Internet habits. The only Internet fora I frequent are specialist ones, and there I comment but rarely; I mostly subscribe to certain threads and keep track by e-mail. Waltham, The Duke of 17:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's nice. Anyway, let me know your response via email whenever it is that you could. Clarytone (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:The Duke of Waltham
User:The Duke of Waltham, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Duke of Waltham and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:The Duke of Waltham during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note, Mr Wilkins; I have commented and voted there in the accustomed manner. Waltham, The Duke of 18:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Message to all and sundry who may be watching this place: the discussion at the Miscellany Tribunal has ended, and my user page not only has survived this terrible ordeal but it has been spared defacement. Subscriptions are welcome for a permanent monument to mark this historic decision. Waltham, The Duke of 14:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's ψ10 from me to get it started. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would wholeheartedly disagree - there was a pretty clear number of people who wished proper labelling in lieu of deletion. That should be the way forward. Calling it "defacement" is your problem - it's wrong (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is your prerogative to disagree, Mr Wilkins. But an equal number of people explicitly judged such labelling to be unnecessary or even hurtful, and even more did so implicitly, so I do not accept that a compromise ought to be adopted just because the two extremes between which it lies exist.
 * But now I have been drawn into re-opening that discussion, and I should prefer not to do that; I promised to comply and live with the result of the MfD when it started, and I hope you can do the same. Now, I have a subscription to organise (thank you, Floquenbeam!), and these things are a lot of work. You need not feel obliged to contribute. Waltham, The Duke of 15:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, you live by your ethics, I'll live by that of the rest of the world. Most people do what's right as opposed to what suits them ... but, whatever. Cheers. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * An eleemosynary contribution in the currency of your choice will be arriving just as soon as you've e-mailed me your bank account details including password.  darwin bish  BITE 15:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC).


 * Pounds sterling will do nicely, thank you. Your munificence is most appreciated; I will send you forthwith the details of one of my largest accounts, so that you may be dazzled by my legendary affluence. Waltham, The Duke of 16:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Abject apologies
Sorry, Duncan, I used to be able to spell... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (and I'm quite flattered that I was your first contribution. Sort of. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC))
 * I am sure he will appreciate the feeling once he has finished with his tantrum. It is a terrible sight to behold, but it has its uses: after leaving him in a part of the house where several presents and assorted unsellable heirlooms are exhibited, I drive to Hull and wait for the noise to die down, then I place a trunk call to my insurers in the City. Seeing the photographs, you wouldn't think, either, that Waltham Hall isn't the target of localised natural catastrophes. Waltham, The Duke of 22:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Respectful message
... while bowing and scraping. Mr Cartwright, sir, please inform His Grace that I'm delighted He's back and editing. I noticed His tweak to one of my sub-pages. Tony  (talk)  05:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid His Grace is on a business trip to Paris, sir, but I am sure he would wish me to convey to you his thanks—probably with many unnecessary adverbs and adjectives—as well as subtly draw your attention to the fact that he has never really stopped editing, low as his levels of activity may usually be. Personally, I agree with your unspoken point: if one is to content oneself with gnoming around, one might as well try harder. Waltham, per pro. H. Cartwright 11:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Humble message
[Curtseying.] I've been using your excellent tip here for fattening up an article I had previously created with the help of the old out of-copyright Dictionary of National Biography. My idea was to mention this to you once the article was nice and plump, but RL keeps interfering, and I'm still fussing and messing with it on a subpage, here. Still, eventually, I modestly hope my additions and corrections will produce an improved bio about a colourful character. Thank you! Bishonen &#124; talk 12:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC).


 * I'm afraid His Grace is on a business trip to... Nah, I can't do this twice in a single day. Give me a moment and I'll put him on the phone for you.
 * [twelve minutes later] Apologies, madam; it appears that the Duke is currently unavailable. In any case, I recall he was very pleased that proximity to a British library is no longer necessary for free access to such a calorie-rich information resource. Being something of an expert on procrastination, I am sure he would also sympathise with your predicament, although whatever is keeping you from finishing that article is sure to be more important (and convincing) than his half-hearted excuses about his professed perfectionism.
 * Now, let's see... This Jordan fellow seems interesting; his brazen publishing methods certainly remind me of some modern equivalents. I initially wondered to what extent his Royalist sympathies were influenced by something other than Parliament's decision to close down the theatres, but then it seems he may have had some political acumen. I didn't know there was a poet to the Corporation of London, though I'm not surprised to hear it... A Diurnall of Dangers, this will catch His Grace's attention: I don't think we have encountered the ancestor of the word journal anywhere before... Anyway, much more material than the century-old DNB, and the article draft seems to be making a good job of condensing and incorporating it. I am sure the Duke will be happy to read the final article when it is ready; I'll bring these things to his attention as soon as the doctor allows me. Waltham, per pro. H. Cartwright 00:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Middle Ages/archive1
I know Eric/Malleus told you it wasn't needed to strike resolved issues - but given the length of the FAC, it probably would be best if you could. If you feel uncomfortable supporting in terms of subject matter, you're perfectly okay with supporting just from reviewing the prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I am a foreigner and a usurper (shh), but I suppose I'm growing more confident about my copy-editing abilities, especially seeing as Mr Corbett has taken most of my concerns seriously; I may still lack the experience and imagination to find better solutions for some problems, but at least I usually know good prose when I see it.
 * In any case, I understand that both the striking and my partial support would help, so I have stricken my resolved points as you ask, and I'll support when all my points are satisfactorily addressed. You may, perhaps, attend to a couple of those which remain: the first one (on Valens) and the one on note "Y".
 * And something else, when you have time (no hurries): does this look reliable to you? I am trying to understand this whole business about the chapel of Our Lady of the Pew in the mediaeval Palace of Westminster, and I've noticed that Our Lady of Westminster is a right mess, though I don't know if I could ever bring myself to fix it... Waltham, The Duke of 16:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the text is from the book Catholic Trivia: Our Forgotten Heritage by Mark Elvins, who looks like a decent fellow, but I could use a second opinion (whenever you have time, of course; I realise you are busy now). As part of my long-running, on-and-off Westminster project, I am working on Old Palace of Westminster at home, and I have reached the point of Edward III's great expansion of the complex. I know you are interested in Norman history, so the 14th century might fall outside this period; if not, I might ask you to have a look when I am done (in a few months, at my current rate), to see if you can spot any glaring errors in my sources or my understanding thereof. (There is already a discrepancy between at least two of my books, which refer to the Exchequer's biennial meetings, and the article Exchequer, which refers to twice-yearly meetings.) It seems unthinkable that nobody has thought to expand the coverage of Westminster Hall, one of England's most important buildings, and that the task might fall on a Greek... But then again, it took an American to write a proper article on the Norman conquest, so you know what I'm talking about. Waltham, The Duke of 13:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Rather than post at your talk page, Ealdgyth, I'll try out this useful new feature and see if you return here instead. Congratulations for the promotion of the article and apologies for not supporting; the FAC ended sooner than I expected, and my remaining concerns were not paid any further attention. Perhaps I'll have a look at the Norman conquest article when it comes to FAC. Waltham, The Duke of 20:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * NO reason to not go ahead and look at the Norman conquest article before it hits FAC... I never mind folks bringing up concerns before the pressure cooker of FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Prcedence: HALP, pls!
User talk:Trajanis (re: Order of precedence in England and Wales) DBD 14:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Printable loopholes
Just dropping you a note (even though you are not very active at the moment) to say that you are not the only one to have discovered the 'loophole' you mentioned in this edit. I worked that out a few months ago as well, but have only just got around to seeing if those links are used on Wikipedia. Turns out they are, currently 135 of them (as of August 2013). While looking down that list, I noticed User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2013/April, which is how I discovered the earlier post you had made. Looks like a fair number of other people use those links as well, seeing that they are used on talk pages and review pages as well. It's bizarre really that such a loophole exists. Though not half as bizarre as the dream from Drmies that started the section where you made that post! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, since I'm mentioned here, I might as well, ahem, apologize to the Duke for not having thanked him properly, much earlier. That was some dream, wasn't it. Thanks for bringing it back up. I wonder if Eric Corbett makes a better father than Malleus did. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note, Carcharoth; I do drop in at least once a week, even though I no longer have the time to edit.
 * I am not particularly surprised that others know about the loophole, considering that I first discovered the ODNB's printable pages through a Google search. Those people may be few, however, if I am to judge from the numerous cries for help (and disgruntled mumblings) by editors desirous but unable to access the biographies on their own—which is why I made that post. And yet I still have misgivings about linking to such pages from articles. On one hand it provides people with the ability to read those biographies, but on the other I remain fearful that the window in question will be noticed by someone with the inclination and ability to close it. I'd feel more comfortable with the use of the printable pages by editors, as a research tool, rather than publicly on the articles themselves; unfortunately any systematic effort to remove them would probably draw attention to itself, which would defeat the point. Then again, perhaps I just like to fret about things.
 * You are very welcome, Drmies. I don't often comment on Mr Corbett's talk page, and when I do my contribution is often buried under the avalanche of new posts, so I didn't think much of it at the time. Besides, I am often late at replying to comments myself, even when I am active here, which may have turned some rare visitor away from my office. I feel bad about it, but it can't be helped; my slow rhythms are not a good fit with the fast-moving times we live in. Waltham, The Duke of 12:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The loophole's gone! My anxiety was not all for nothing. Good thing I saved the few dozen pages I was most interested in when I had the chance... Whatever can be salvaged seems to hang on to existence here. Waltham, The Duke of 21:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Bowing, scraping
His Grace's humble subject noticed His brief activity on His talk page. Said subject would like to offer his salutations and wonders whether en.WP will benefit from His greater presence in the coming months. Tony  (talk)  10:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I wish this were possible, but my access to the World Wide Web is too limited for that, and my time on-line is generally consumed by information hunting. My daily routine has changed radically since August, you see, and it will change even more in January, when I'll (probably) start my national service, which normally lasts nine months. Not to mention that, most regrettably and somewhat inexplicably, I have become more of a recluse in the digital sphere and have generally drifted away from my established on-line contacts; I haven't been replying to my e-mails in a timely fashion for a long time indeed. Perhaps that's due to real-life demands on me, and because I spend much less time on my own now, but I can't really say. I like being here, and there's so much I'd like to do, but I simply don't know if and when I'll get to do it. Waltham, The Duke of 14:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...

 * And in return I'd like to wish you a very Happy Christmas and all the best for the New Year and your endeavours therein (from the atheist who can't ride a horse but does cycle rather a lot). I'm actually touched to be in someone's holiday-card list, given how little I've been showing my face around here. Waltham, The Duke of 20:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The humblest of entreaties
His Grace's humblest subject protests in the mildest of terms that he emailed some time ago, without reply. His Grace may find me in His junk-mail folder—no doubt where I belong, along with the Signpost notifications.



Tony  (talk)  02:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My inbox is far more cluttered than this page, which partly explains why I missed your reply. I ought to have been more attentive, though. The real problem is the clutter in my head; I am acutely conscious of the fact that my e-mails rarely start with anything other than an apology for not having replied sooner. This saddens me and angers me in equal measures, yet for all my good intentions to re-establish regular communications on-line... I despair of ever achieving this goal. Waltham, The Duke of 21:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)