Rajofcanada

Welcome!

Hello, Rajofcanada, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Piet 17:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames of European Royalty and Nobility

Hello Rajofcanada. I notice you've been doing a lot of work on the Nicknames of European Royalty and Nobility article. Two remarks:

• Don't use uppercase. Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Capital_letters.
• There was a mergeto-suggestion at the top of the article, which you removed. There is a discussion at the talk page of that article (Talk:List of monarchs by nickname) giving some explanation. If you disagree, please join the discussion. But never remove a tag like that without at least explaining why you do it - on the talk page or in your edit summary. At the moment we're working on the same information in two different places.

Apart from that, you've been doing good work on this article, I know it's a pain to link these people to the right page. Keep it up, but first check the discussion so we can direct all efforts to the same place. Piet 17:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

List of states in the Holy Roman Empire

Hello Rajofcanada. I've seen you updating the info on this page. There are just a few things wrong:

• There is a separate column for saying which Imperial Circle an estate was in. No need to add it to the notes column as it takes up too much space (the page was already far too long; don't make it worse for the majority of people on dial-up), especially since 99% of all estates joined their respective circles in 1500 or 1512 when they were created.
• There isn't any need to mention when a castle in a lordship was built or renovated. It was more often than not centuries before a lordship developed around them, and thus unnecessary. That kind of info would be better served on a page about the castle, not on a list which has nothing to do with it.
• No need to go into too much detail on how a state changed hands. Just "1400 - 1502: To Lords of Baabaa" etc. is suffice (again too much info; 1400 - 1502: Passed to the Lords of Baabaa with the marriage of Gertrude, daughter of Jessy Joe Joe, married etc.).
• There is a column specifically for when a state came into creation. It looks better and is more consistant when it is used instead of the notes column.

I also don't see the benefit in stating what happened to a state when it left the empire or when it survived it, but I can see the other side of that argument and so its probably fine. Other than that, good work and I wish you all the best :) - Nomadic1 23:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

RLManikan Hi Nomadic1,

Actually the 150 or so HRE states which were classified into Imperial Circles (which you say is 99% of all estates) constitute not even 10% of the "Holy Roman Empire States/Estates" which existed "at any time"..."between 962 and 1806," as the intro to this article touts. That's the reason I added the data about the number of HRE States in the 1700's and by 1792, which other scholars have estimated, to provide a perspective of the numbers we're dealing with in this article. I suppose this is also a gentle reminder that this article is not about HRE States which joined the imperial circles but about the variety and diversity of the states, polities, jurisdictions, etc. that constituted the Empire.

Based on the above, therefore, the columns for the "Circle" and "Bench" are a surplussage or, at least, not representative of the subject of this article. I suggest, we delete these columns (and the "Date Formed" as well where most of the dates are wrong) and add the space to the "Notes" column to accommodate more interesting info.

Re: the size of this article, again as evident from the intro, this will be a "massive list" so you might want to break the article up into manageable proportions (like A-C, D-F, etc. sub-sections). I understand your concern for those who are on dial-up but we cannot ignore the fact that this will be a huge list based on the nature of the subject matter.

Will write more comments later because I've got to go for now.

You got me wrong - I didn't say that 99% of states were organised into circles; I said that 99% of states that were organised into circles were done so when they were formed (1500 / 1512). Therefore it is saying the same thing twice, and the column does it better. The Circle and Bench columns are very useful, and sum up their information nicely. The "Date Formed" Column is the only one I think we can go without, but such a drastic change would need to be properly proposed. It is more a relic from when the list was only for states with a seat in the Reichstag. - Nomadic1 08:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

24.83.123.37Maybe you did not express it quite clearly, Nomadic1, but this is what you wrote: "...especially since 99% of all estates joined their respective circles in 1500 or 1512 when they were created." I'm sure I did not get it wrong.

In any case, this article should be about ALL estates or, as one scholar puts it, "polities", which possessed the quality or status of "imperial immediacy" in the Holy Roman Empire between 962 and 1806. I'm interested in this, as some other wikipedians are, because there is no comprehensive list of the estates/states/polities, as defined above, of the HRE available on the internet (especially in the English language), including Wikipedia. I've been doing research in this area for many years now and it's been both frustrating and challenging that many of the materials about this subject are simply not available in a single web site, article or even book.

Then the Internet and Wikepedia came along which opened up an excellent opportunity to consolidate all the disparate data that wikepedians who are doing work on this article, authors and scholars, etc. have into one "mother article" or "master list". There will definitely be an "explosion" of data for this "milestone" article. [Again, while I appreciate your concern for access by those who are on dial-up, the imperative of "scholarship" should not be constrained by technological limitations.] Thus, I see this article growing until the listing is almost complete (i.e., with close to 1800 names of estates/states/polities listed), if not complete, in line with the objective stated at the beginning of this article.

If the article size, as it already is, becomes too long to scan or scroll through, the contributors and editors can discuss and agree on how to reformat (e.g., break up into linked sections, as one wikipedian did to my article on Nicknames of European Royalty and Nobility) the mother article. Until then, I would like us to observe a "policy of inclusion" of information or data here, rather than a restrictive one because of the format. As one aptly said: "substance over format" defines the reach of knowledge. While it is "neat" to see some abbreviations and columns, there is more dynamism and insight in utilizing "snapshot" statements about the various entries in the list as one finds on the "Notes" column. [Parenthetically, I find it more helpful to wikify (that is, link) the name of the Circle in the "Notes" column which a reader can then click to read more about the Circle or Bench.]

ITEM: "There isn't any need to mention when a castle in a lordship was built or renovated. It was more often than not centuries before a lordship developed around them, and thus unnecessary. That kind of info would be better served on a page about the castle, not on a list which has nothing to do with it."

COMMENT: I would not "triviliaze" this. If you read the references I have cited at the end of the HRE States article, you will find that (a) the date of founding, creation, confirmation or recognition of the HRE "polities" could not always be exactly stated thus this info gives an indication of the ; (b) most HRE polities started as a "castle", that is as the landed or territorial possession of a family (in many cases who started not even as "nobles"), in many cases limited to the castle itself and the area immediately surrounding the castle (or, as the German sources call it, "yards") but was a very significant determination of what Francois Velde called the "qualities" of HRE States, including their "qualification" to belong to an Imperial Circle and, the apex of recognition, to the Reichstag. The most famous example is the Principality of Liechtenstein whose ruling Prince sought and bought the Lordship of Schellenberg in order to gain Imperial immediacy and eventually recognition as a separate Principality. Thus, the historical development of the castle is germane to the history of the polity, not just the castle. (Also, if you check the translated version of the German and other castles, you will find snippets of data about the political development of the HRE state or polity which grew around the castle.

I beg to disagree with you. Including "snapshot" statements of the lordship's development from a castle-keep to a castle-yard to a castle-based polity is significant to understanding its history and political development.

Cheers! Well, there's still no need to get rid of the two Circle/Bench columns, or to double up on their info. :) With the 1800+ states, most of them were Imperial Knights if I get what you mean. A separate list would be better for the the Knights, because they never obtained high nobility (except in most rare cases), were never organised into circles (they organised themselves into different circles divided into smaller units after the other circles were formed), and never had a "bench". Many weren't even immediate. - Nomadic1 07:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you please stop doing that? The HRE ended in 1806, so the status of Frankfurt after that does NOT belong in the type column, only in the notes. Also, even if the Grand Duchy had been established before 1806, it wouldn't belong there since the Grand Duchy was a newly established entity of which the city of Frankfurt was but one of its constituents. So if this were an HRE entity, we would need to create a new entry just for that. So if an entity changes between being an imperial city, a spiritual territory and a secular territory (like Verden) you need to create separate entries for that. Only if a territory is "promoted" without changing its principal type, can you write the different designations in the column, like Bavaria. Red is for imperial cities, and the way you do it totally confuses this system. If you wanted to recognise the Grand Duchy, create a new entry for it, but then you would have an even harder time defending this, seeing that the HRE was dissolved in 1806.

And finally, there is also a difference between Free Cities and Imperial Cities, please DO NOT revert my changes for various cities since these were meant to reflect this difference. Crix 02:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

RommelThere is a saying in Latin which says "substance over form". I have nothing against using colour codes or anything. I respect the intentions and contributions of Wikipedians who designed this table. However, the above saying also implies that form should not limit substantive knowledge or fact or information to fit the form that has been designed. In the same manner that the HRE and its contituent polities was a dynamic institution, this table should also reflect that dynamic historical development of the Empire.

If you read my messages in the "Discussion" section of the article itself, you will see that I wanted to introduce RELEVANCE to this article by "connecting" the HRE States to post-1806 and later geo-political realities. When I said this, I had in mind other Wikipedia users, and most especially those doing their family genealogies, and who are "confused" by what looks to them as the "patch work" that the HRE appears to be.

The introduction to this article states: "This is a list of states which were part of the Holy Roman Empire at any time within the empire's existence between 962 and 1806." This means we include here "States" which existed during the covered period. However, I feel that we should NOT be literally reflecting only the historical and political development of the "State" to the 962-1806 timeframe. And the reason is, as stated in the previous paragraph, to inject relevance of the "historical States" to the current polities (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, etc.) readers Wikipedia of Wikipedia and amateur genealogical researchers and students of history. I know Wikipedia does not aim to be an "intellectual encyclopaedia" but a "popular" educational material.

I would like to reflect the historical development of Frankfurt from an imperial city to a grand duchy in the "Type" column because as the name of the column says, it is for the type of polity of the State which was a part of the HRE. Let us not try to be myopic. Rather than confusing the material, I feel I'm adding to its clarity.

BTW, after reading of the "Discussion" section, I felt there were clarifications needed about the HRE and its constituent states. So, I copied and pasted "Definition of Terms", etc. so readers would have a reference point in their discussion or contribution. The same clarification is needed about the difference between "Imperial City" and "Free City". I know the distinction. However, if you surf the web, you will see that not all compilers and students of HRE history know, or even appreciate, this. [You might want to do a "clean up" of the List of Imperial Free Cities that is cited at the beginning of the HRE States article.] I gather from your history of contributions to Wikipedia that you've done a lot of work about Imperial Cities. So I leave you to provide more informative bases for understanding the disctinction for the greater majority of Wikipedia users. However, if I have more accurate information than you (as in the case of the "Principality of Frankfurt"), I will not hesitate to edit the entry as needed. So please do not constrain my hands by telling me "DO NOT". We are both Wikipedians and that means we have the same right to edit or amend the article as anybody does. [As you probably can see, my contributions are also supported by references at the end of the article.]

I do not appreciate being "TOLD" here or anywhere.

So, if historical accuracy is to be reflected in the table, Frankfurt was an imperial city during the HRE. But it was (in your words) "promoted" to some other form. It became a Grand Duchy in 1810. That's a fact and that should go to the "Type" Column which means "the type of polity".

I do not want to see any further splitting of defitions or categories, as you are suggesting (spiritual, lay, etc). I always go for what is simple. There are a lot of materials we can refer Wikipedia users re: these "splitting of terms". But let us use the columns to reflect as much "clarifying" info and NOT FROZEN DATA, such as "Imperial City" to make this article relevant, dynamic and interesting.

I appreciate your comments and contributions. I hope we can enrich this article through new data and less of debate.

Cheers!

RommelI missed the "NOT" (as indicated above) when I edited my reply.

Hi thanks for your comments. I guess the revert tug-of-war was getting to me. So let me address the points you made:

• the list was not started by me, what I tried is to understand the intentions behind the set-up, regarding the colour scheme and all that (of course it wouldnt hurt to explain this somewhere explicitly).
  • red for imperial cities or other imperial entities such as imperial valleys
  • blue for spiritual territories
  • white for secular terrotories

there were suggestions to mark in some way or other:

• • the elector states
  • those states which were in extistence in 1806

not only because I'd like to respect the intentions of the original authors, but also because I find this division highly useful. So Frankfurt is a case in point, just like Verden or other cities thatt were subsumed by a larger territory with the same name, e.g. Mainz

• re HRE: originally the list was intended to enter on post-1648, but was then extended. However, I think to include entitites after its demise would significantly alter the list. We have States of the German Confederation, North_German_Confederation, and States of the German Empire for that. Since I have been mainly doing cities, the rule of thumb I have followed was like this:
  • Swiss cantons: they all left in 1648, if a city wasn't a canton by then, record the date when it became one (St. Gallen)
  • Cities annexed by France prior to 1789: only the date to leave the empire
  • Any cities that were part of the German Empire of 1871: if they lost their immedicacy after 1789, record some notes up to 1866. Only exception: Lübeck for obvious reasons.

so basically I'm all in favour to include developments post-1806, but only as notes. I mean different from the mediatisation in 1803, these changes represent Napoleon's restructuring of the HRE the protest against which was one of the factors leading to the abdication of the Emperor. So let's keep this separate, or let's put them in a section of their own.

• Re imperial cities and free cities: yes, you're right, especially towards the end of the HRE, the terms were used as an amalgam "Free Imperial Cities", given more time, I wiil try to bring more consistency into that, my edits of Free Imperial Cities are just a first step. What troubles me more though, is that there are a number of cities that are sort of inbetween, Warburg, Brakel, Danzig, Elbing,Neckargmünd,Waldsee, and some other cities who had their immediacy restricted in some way like Hildesheim. But as the list is huge and inclusive anyways, I would vote for being inclusive, as long as these particularities are duly noted.

So I hope that clears up some of my positions and will be conducive to a more cooperative atmosphere. Crix 04:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, just for the record: Frankfurt was listed as a Principality before I started editing, I merely moved it from the type column to the note column. I was just going through my list of free cities in a hurry, only looking for grave omissions. Now one thing though: the entry on Regensburg is quite confusing and also does not reflect the fact that not everything was lost to Bavaria but that Wetzlar was one of the constituent parts of the Grand Duchy of Frankfurt in 1810. Maybe we should create a separate entry of the Principality of Regensburg.Crix 04:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

RommelThanks for your reply and clarification. As I said, I'm fine with the colour code (why didn't anybody suggest fuschia?). I like an open exchange of ideas. We all have a contribution to make towards enriching Wikipedia. I understand and respect your passion for your work and contributions. As everyone does, I learn from all contributors because no one really has a monopoly of knowledge in Wikipedia. We all make it what it is.

In my years of doing research about the HRE (no, I'm not a historian, just a curious student of European history), I've always kept the fascination and passion to learn more about its constituent States. It was mind-boggling at first, to say the least. Until the Internet came along and made research "just a click away".

It was confusing for me at first but then reading the works of serious scholars (Rozn, Sainty, Velde, "Regnal Chronologies", etc.) helped me figure out the mosaic or puzzle that the HRE originally presented to me. I began to understand the "watermark" years (1500/1512 Imperial Circles, 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, 1792/94 French occupation of the left bank of the Rhine, secularization, mediatization, the Confederations, and finally the 1806 HRE dissolution).

I have collected information about the HRE "States" which I now want to share in Wikipedia. I've done work on the Imperial Cities, too, and we can collaborate on this.

Let's help each other "evolve" this table from the first authors' conception and contribution to a "master list" that will help other Wikipedians and researchers with their other works on the HRE.

Finally, what I add to this article is based on the principle that I only reflect what is "history", that is, include data that I've found on the Internet basically and, to the best of my ability in terms of data appreciation, add to or enrich what has been contributed long before I entered the "fray".

Talking about Imperial Cities, have you examined Utrecht and its "quarters" with different types of "sovereignties"? I'd like to hear what you see in it. I'm still grappling with Pomerania, Pomerellia, Inner Austria, etc. and other "gray areas". Again, let's work together and learn from each other. After all, that's what Wikipedia is all about. Cheers!

Yes, it is truly fascinating and mind-boggling, usually in school they'll just tell you "they had a lot of small states, whose number was greatly reduced by Napoleon" ;)... Right now I am far away from any research library, so for exact dates etc I'm basically relying on the internet and what people have put on wikipedia (cross-reading the other-lg wikipedias as well, which means mostly the German one). Now for your points:

• Dutch cities: unfortunately I know next to nothing about cities in that area. For instance, I recall Groningen having a "free imperial city" tag, but cannot find anything that reflects it. Now I assume that with the formation of the Burgundian Netherlands the cities lost their immediacy, but I have no way of checking this right now. At least they were not part of the Reichsmatrikel of 1521. So for Utrecht, I don't know. Could it be similar to Lübeck, where the bishop controlled lands adjacent to the city, including a small portion around the dome inside the city? Also I know of cities in the East, where the Neustadt was built adjacent to the Altstadt, legally two separate entities. Please let me know (you might also want to put this into the article on Utrecht, since it isn't really mentioned there).
• the East: if you're grappling with Pommerania, Royal Prussia isn't far... Danzig, Elbing and Thorn are sometimes mentioned, I have seen the first two in the Reichsmatrikel of 1521. I know it's not a completely reliable indicator for immediacy, and also I do believe that this part, like most of the lands formerly governed by the Teutonic Order, was outside of the HRE. So why are they mentioned? Do you know?
• lastly, I have a request: if you delete something, could you just briefly include a reason why? Since there are so many territories, nobody really can know all of them immediately, so the first thought I have if I see getting something deleted from the list is wondering why that was deleted. A short comment would spare me the need to go and check what the territory actually was. Since the borders of the Empire kept changing, it can get really confusing sometimes. Or another way would be, as they did in the case of the Glücksburg territories, move them to a section beneath.

Crix 10:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

links

Hi, I am sorry I at one time mistaked a few of them for WP:SPAM. Though I am a bit concerned by the sheer number of external links you are adding, I did attempt to revert myself. Though I do want to note that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that your contributions are lisenesed to the GDFL. I thought I undid everything I reverted, I may have missed one. One question I do have is why do we need all these external links, if I may so ask? I mean in a list like that, aren't the wikipedia links enough? The articles themselves are what need citations, by reliable sources, not a list. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 07:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Referencing Entries in the European Royal and Noble Nicknames

Hi Eagle 101,

When I noticed that many of the sub-articles in this article were being undone, I thought someone was "vandalizing" it so my instinctive reaction was to write a note for whoever to desist. And then I noticed that you yourself started reverting but left a couple of sub-articles. Since I did not know at first how to undo what you had done, I sent you a note. I cannot blame you for suspecting that somebody was spamming the article. I did not mean, however, to prevent you from exercising your right to edit the work, as any wikipedian could do. Sorry if I gave this impression.

The main reason I'm giving a reference to the individual royal or noble person or each nickname is to comply with the Wikipedia pillar principle of verifiability of the entries. While I have a long bibliography at the beginning of the article, I was inspired by another Wikipedia article (also a list, the title of which I have forgotten) I saw in the course of my research where references or citations are placed after the entries. I thought this was a neat way of referencing one's article with external links so any Wikipedia reader, contributor or editor can just click the link and go to the source/s.

The other reason I adopted the above style of providing external links to each royal or noble surname is to lead a reader, contributor or editor to them with the hope that they will find additional information that will enrich the individual biographies of the royal or noble person in my list. I have seen many individual biographical entries amended to include or add new nicknames, surnames or sobriquets that are in my list.

Also, the external links I provide are specific to those which mention the nickname, surname or sobriquet in my list AND a line or two explanating the nickname. My hope is when a reader or contributor clicks the link and goes to the page, he or she can do a word search of the nickname, etc. in the referenced article to get the specific mention or explanation of the nickname, surname, etc.

You might have noticed, too, that I provide more than one external link to many of the entries in my article. This is so because different authors have used a variation or two of a nickname or surname of a royal or noble person. For example, one author refers to Robert II of Flanders as "the sword and lance of Christendom"; two other authors use "the lance and sword of the Christians." Providing as many external links that provide more clarification about a nickname, etc. I feel is good practice.

I can see your concern about the the number of external link references for a "mere list". You add that the links to Wikipedia articles on the royal or noble person in my list should be sufficient material. Unfortunately, if you review the individual biographies of many of the entries in my list, you will see that a majority of them are "stubs", that is, there is very little information about the royal or noble, much less any mention or explanation of their nickname, surname, etc. Again, my hope is that by providing more external links to addition resources about the royal or noble in my list, the "bare" biographical entries would be enhanced by additional information. As one contributor said in a discussion board here, a list is a window for wikipedians to find out what we have and, more importantly, what we still don't have as articles or contributions that should be found in Wikipedia. This article is one proof of the above comment. Hopefully the references other Wikipedia authors or contributors find in this list will assist them in referencing new or existing biographical entries about the royal or noble personages in my list.

I hope I have given you some clarification. If I have not, please do not hesitate to send me another note. Thank you very much for your interest in this list of nicknames of European royalty and nobility. Cheers!

rajofcanada

Minor edits to above

"explanating" should be "explaining" (original word was "explanation" until I changed the phrase and ended in a disaster!)

"addition" resources should be "additional" resources.

My apologies.

rajofcanada

Links to Pictures

I am adding links to pictures of European royalty and nobility in this list to enrich the collection of nicknames. I will endeavour to find pictures that are royalty-free and comply with copyright and Wikipedia guidelines on images or pictures.

Geocities

Please do not add geocities links to articles. Thanks. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

rajofcanadaMay I know why?

Harold Harefoot

If you would like to move Harold Harefoot to Harold I, King of England, please see meta:Help:Moving a page. Basically, Wikipedia:Requested moves is the place to leave a request. Moves can't be done by cut and paste. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm a neohphyte in changing titles and other Wikipedia editing techniques, so I appreciate your "alert".

I also hope I did right in "clicking" 'edit' to reply to your message.

Absolutely! The only thing you forgot was signing your name with four tildes: ~~~~ adds your account name and the current date/time. But that's no big deal! If you have any problems you can always try asking at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page or Wikipedia:Help desk. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I do consult the Wikipedia Help Desk but some of the instructions are oftentime too difficult for my old brain to grasp, much less follow! It's true, I always forget to sign my messages. Thanks again for the reminder. rajofcanada 19:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)rajofcanada

I meant "oftentimes".rajofcanada 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)rajofcanada

Some tips about Renaming/Moving articles

Hi, Rajofcanada, as an editor with some experience regarding article moves, I'd like to offer some friendly assistance regarding some Wikipedia conventions.

• Regarding Renaming/Moving articles: I noticed that you renamed the article on Ercole d'Este, Duke of Ferrara, by creating a new page at Ercole I, Duke of Ferrara, and pasting the content from Ercole d'Este I. There are two concerns with that. a.) The first concern is, that the edit history that went with the "Ercole d'Este I" article gets "left behind". In order to deal with that issue, Wikipedia has a Move function, that moves the history and talk pages along with the article. You can find some instructions on the "correct" way to move a page at Help:Moving a page. b.) The second concern is, that, for an established article, a name change should probably either i) make the article title more in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions or ii) be consistent with articles on similar subjects and/or be discussed first with other editors who are interested in the same article/group of articles. In the case of "our friend" Ercole, I found that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) (see section on "Other non-royal names") was not entirely helpful; it did not seem to apply specifically to the d'Este family of the Dukes of Ferrara. In that case, the recommendation would be to look for an established convention, for example, by scanning Category:House of Este or to open a discussion at Talk:Este or start a talk page for List of Dukes of Ferrara and of Modena. There does seem to be an existing convention for article names of the format Ercole I d'Este, if you look at the "House of Este" category.

For the "divided" history on the Ercole I article, I've put in a request at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen for an admin to "fix things up" (this type of repair requires admin privileges). I did not give a solid recommendation as to under which title the article contents should now reside, but my opinion would be to keep it at "Ercole I d'Este", until a consensus could be determined if there where a better naming convention for the dukes from the Este family.

• Regarding your intention of incorporating your notes on the Political, Territorial and Dynastic Development of the States of the Holy Roman Empire into Wikipedia - sounds good! It sounds like your interest in and approach to Wikipedia is similar to the way that I became involved. Here's one thing to keep in mind, please look at the policy on No original research; you will want to make sure that whatever material you add can be backed up by a published source, and the more frequently that you can add references and citations to the articles that you work on, the more you will be increasing the value of Wikipedia.

I hope that all of the above is helpful and not overwhelming; it is meant not to discourage you from continuing to contribute to the structure as well as the content of Wikipedia, but rather to help you continue to "get your bearings" and continue to become even more comfortable in interacting with the Wikipedia "community". Please feel free to leave me a note at my talk page, if you'd like any help with specifics of any of the above. I'll be glad to help with anything I can within the extent of my knowledge.

Cheers, Lini 13:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lini,

Thanks for your suggestions. I will share some thoughts with you later.

Cheers,rajofcanada 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)rajofcanada

"Raj", I'd like to retract (and briefly apologize for) the part of my comments above about backing up one's edits with references. As I looked more carefully over prior sections of this discussion page, and your extensive edit history, I see that you don't need anyone to talk to you about references (insert embarassed face here :) Somehow, it was the wording on your user page that "alarmed" me a little, combined with my interpretation of the assortment of impressions that I gleaned from an initial scan of your talk page, that gave me the mistaken idea that you were much newer to Wikipedia than you actually are. So, shame on me for being too quick to respond, and not being careful enough in my assessment. I'm sorry. However, I think my comments on the article move/rename are still relevant, and I do look forward to hearing your thoughts on it and discussing further. Thanks for forbearing to respond in an offended way (at least not yet :) regarding my comment about the references. Lini 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Lini, no offense taken (or even felt)! I'm happy you had a better look at my contributions to realize that I have been providing references to them. And the citations or references keep growing or changing, as new research reveals better materials. If you notice, in both articles (European royal and noble nicknames and HRE States), I have provided an ever-growing reference list primarily to help in improving the individual articles about the royals or nobles who are in the "List of nicknames...." It can be frustrating to see so many stubs with very scanty biographical info. I'm not attempting to add to the entries because I'm not really a writer. I'm just a list compiler (but a conscientious reference-provider!).

I wish, however, to contribute to re-naming the articles on the individual royals or nobles who are in my "List of nicknames...." I'm studying the materials on naming conventions you have provided. rajofcanada 05:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)rajofcanada

List of nicknames of European Royalty and Nobility: R

sorry, for reverting you, my mistake. --Algont 16:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you in any way. I'm doing a revamp of the "List of Nicknames...". I have put up an alert on top of each section's page to inform readers of this rework. As you can gleam from what has been done, I'm reorganising the list according to a royal's or noble's names, rather than his/her nicknames/. One reason is to cluster the several nicknames of many of the royals/nobles. Another is to catch different versions (due to spelling variations, etc.) of a name and link the one to a Wikipedia article-biography. I hope you will stretch your patience until this revamp is completed. [I have a lot of time now so I'm revamping the article.] rajofcanada 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)rajofcanada

Article moves

Please don't move royalty articles without discussion; there are a lot of people with strong feelings on the matter. The proper place to go is Wikipedia:Requested moves (and please follow the instructions there). One place to discuss the matter in general is Wikipedia talk:naming conventions (names and titles).

In particular, Wikipedia:Use English does not mean translate forcibly into English; it means use whatever form, English or local, is commonly used in English. Guglielmo Gonzaga and Francesco Gonzaga are commonly so called; whether the different men of those names are best distinguished by numeral is another question. Francis II, Marquess of Mantua is unfamiliar to me, at least, on three grounds. I expect Francesco; I expect Gonzaga; and Marquis is the modern convention for marquisates outside the British Isles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have followed the discussion on royalty naming conventions. The only thing I can say is it's a Tower of Babel! There is really no consensus on the matter. It is like saying that, in spite of all the huffing and puffing, the "community" cannot really reach a consensus. My renaming is based on convention as formulated, one of which is the use the most commonly known English equivalent of foreign names. That means I was just applying what is in the written convention. Following your logic, using Guglielmo for the dukes of Mantua should also be applied to Guglielmo il Buono and Guglielmo il Malo, Kings of Sicily, isn't it? There is really an uneven opinion on the matter so your judgment or opinion is as good as mine or anybody else's. If you're telling me that your opinion is what is the consensus, I really don't think so. So, as you suggested, "consulting" (by addressing it to the "requested moves" place or whatever the community about name change is really like saying that nothing will happen. What actually happens, based on my observation in fact, is the "will" of those who huff and puff a lot will prevail in the end. Thus, I don't really want want to argue with you about this. I will just move on.rajofcanadarajofcanada

User:Rajofcanada/HREStates/Duchy

I just created a disambig for Duchy of Silesia. I will expand on the Polish times, but since you seem to have some knowledge of the HRE times, could you add a relevant part to the disambig and/or create a stub for that period? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: Q

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: Q, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.133.75.133 20:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to List of female rulers and title holders: England (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 01:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the list-maker of this article. I'm, consolidating all the entries for "Female Rulers and Title Holders" in one article, arranged alphabetically, so it will be easier to add new entries. Thanks for letting me know. rajofcanada 01:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)rajofcanada

List of female rulers and title holders

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of female rulers and title holders, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of female rulers and title holders.

I did not propose deletion; I'm simply notifying you that someone did. Fg2 (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Before I respond to your request, may I know the reason of the person who proposed the deletion of this article.

If this is deleted, can you direct me to a similar article as defined by the introductory paragraphs of this article?

The reason I started this article is because I have not found one that satisfies my -- and maybe others' -- curiosity. rajofcanada (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of female rulers and title holders

The article List of female rulers and title holders has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Better organised as sub-categories in Category:Women rulers

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DrKiernan (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: L, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luigi Gonzaga. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen of England.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: A, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen of England.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Your edit to List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: A has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. There are also probably still extant issues in this and other pages of this series, as well as plagiarism from PD sources. eviolite (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I am just getting back to the "List of Nicknames . . ." after a long absence due to work. Am not even sure if I should reply to your note here. I appreciate the guidance. I thought I could lift from sources with attribution after each entry. I will correct by using precis in my additional entries for the nicknames. rajofcanada

@Rajofcanada: Alright, thank you for the understanding. (You do not even really need to elaborate on each entry in my opinion; just a reference will be fine as long as you can make sure it is actually a nickname and not a description). And by the way, welcome back! eviolite (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: E, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: L, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leopold of Bavaria.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: B

added links pointing to Gallus and Valerian

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: I

added a link pointing to Ibrahim I

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: B

added links pointing to Gallus and Valerian

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: L

added links pointing to Ferdinand III and Archduchess Maria Anna of Austria

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: G

added a link pointing to Cosimo di Giovanni de' Medici

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: I

added a link pointing to Ernest of Austria

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: T–V

added a link pointing to Gaston of Foix

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I protest the deletion of my List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility - M. Please restore it ASAP. I have been revising the entries almost daily because there's a lot of work to be done since I resumed writing here. Thanks.

Speedy deletion nomination of List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: M

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: M requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 185.233.193.8 (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Undeletion

All you need to do is go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. There's a big button that says Request undeletion; just follow the instructions and request the history be restored That page is actually linked in the deletion log. If you're still having trouble you can also go directly to User talk:Fastily and request restoration there. Regards, 185.233.193.8 (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

As another quick point, owing to circumstances I can't control my IP is hopping all over the place, so I'm probably not going to be the best person to seek help from, but if you head over to the WP:TEAHOUSE there are many dedicated volunteers who will be more than happy to assist. Regards, 185.233.193.8 (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.

--rajofcanada (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)== November 2021 ==

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow! I learned something new today. I hope I will put it into practice. Thanks.--rajofcanada (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Rajofcanada, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite! Maybe later, after I have honed my Wikipedia editing skills (after a long, long pause).--rajofcanada (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite!--rajofcanada (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: L

added links pointing to Ferdinand III and Archduchess Maria Anna of Austria

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: I

added a link pointing to Ernest of Austria

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: N–O

added a link pointing to Grand Duchess Maria

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: H

added links pointing to Otto of Austria, Axel von Fersen and Edward Kynaston

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: M

added links pointing to Elisabeth of Austria, Francis Knollys and George Payne

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: W–Z

added links pointing to Catherine Gordon and Otto of Austria

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: B

added a link pointing to Eleanor of Brittany

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: D

added a link pointing to Matthew O'Neill

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: E

added a link pointing to Edmund of England

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: F

added a link pointing to Margaret of Norway

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: K

added a link pointing to William Mure

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: W–Z, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Wade.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: *List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: P (December 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:*List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: P and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:*List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: P, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello KylieTastic, I want to split some pages N-O, P-Q, T-V. W-Z because they're growing longer. Searching is becoming unmanageable. I'm not tech savvy and have aging eyes, so I cannot follow the detailed instructions in creating a new page. Earlier, I copied and pasted to create new pages, but am not sure now if I did the right thing. Please help.--rajofcanada (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: *List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: P (December 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nomadicghumakkad was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:*List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: P and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:*List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: P, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Unmanageable, poorly-sourced "List of nicknames..." series

Hi, as I'm sure you've already experienced, these lists have become impossible to edit due to their size. I went ahead and sectioned your M list so that browsers don't crash when trying to edit, but all of these pages have this issue. This is especially problematic because a) many entries are unsourced, and for BLPs this is unacceptable (you had multiple unreferenced derogatory terms for Meghan Markle, for example. This is extremely bad!); b) the entries that are sourced are frequently sourced to deprecated and unreliable sites (e.g. obvious SPS like englishmonarchs.co.uk, earlybritishkingdoms.com, thefreelancehistorywriter.com, historyofroyalwomen.com, Ancient Ancestors; WP:UGC like findagrave.com, bibliomania.com, manybooks.com, rootsweb.com; and unreliable tabloids like Daily Express), and that's not even getting into the thousands of Google books refs that are undoubtedly self-published garbage or otherwise unacceptable (like demeaning epithets for Princess Michael of Kent sourced only to a joke book); the most concerning part of these refs is how recently some have been added, indicating you are still not familiar with our sourcing policies despite being here 15 years; c) many entries appear to be completely WP:OR and/or clearly not "nicknames" -- e.g. the First Woman Ever to be Awarded a University Degree and Wife of Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd.

All of these lists should be draftified and only moved back to mainspace once every item is sourced reliably (and is recognized by RS as a true nickname/epithet) and organized into manageable sections. I'm pinging @DrKay: as an admin involved in nobility page maintenance for further insight. JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

On a second look of these lists (I have had this page watchlisted since the lists came up at CopyPatrol, but did not look to carefully at the lists then) I agree with the points JoelleJay brings up. I am also highly concerned about how they appear to be an entirely indiscriminate collection with no selection criteria, just being "what one person called this particular noble one time". I think for one you should slow down with these edits to this type of page as I see you have also recently made concerning drafts. eviolite (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks completely arbitrary and crying out for nomination for deletion. All the unsourced entries, all the bad sources, and all the original research, needs to be removed. DrKay (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

A rejoinder and a plea

Hello, thank you for your comments. I can see how “passionate” you are about what you wrote.

I will try to provide clarification on the other points raised by you and the other commenters later because this reply is very important to me.

In response to your post, I invite you to read the linked The Sun article, entitled “LITTLE MISS 'FORGETFUL' Meghan Markle issues apology for ‘forgetting’ to tell court she tried to influence royal biography” (@ https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/16698052/meghan-markle-forget-court-influence-biography/).

I ask you to focus on the testimony of the spokesperson, Mr. Knauf, and the apology of the plaintiff. As stated in the article, the plaintiff “got off the hook” because the “discovery” of new or additional evidence was not the matter before the court (the court ruled on the breach of privacy issue). The case is on appeal, so this is not the end of the story. But I’m sure you will agree with me that the admission and apology of the plaintiff speak volumes about character.

I now ask you whether the nickname was “derogatory” or based on facts. Or whether, according to Oxford Languages, “showing a critical or disrespectful attitude.” Did the nickname “Little Miss Forgetful” arise from the newspaper reporters’ “disrespectful attitude” or on the behaviour of the plaintiff in a British court of law. In short, is it derogatory when the article describes the evidence presented to the court of an attempt to lie or be dishonest (conveniently attributed to a “faulty memory”)? I believe the British newspapers were being kind or nice to the plaintiff when they used the “Little Miss Forgetful” headline rather than “D.D.” ("dishonest duchess" or "duplicitous duchess").

I ask you whether it was “bad” to use the above nickname in the article on European royalty/nobility nickname. Isn't it worse that the attempt to lie in a court of law is "bad", "very, very bad"?

Finally, I want to caution you about splashing judgmental words (e.g. “bad”, “derogatory”, “disorganized”) across the page. I thought "Wikipedia is not censored", to wit: “Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.”

I hope you enjoy the Sun article I linked. There are other materials I can send you, But know that a sense of responsibility permeates the contributions I make to Wikipedia. Cheers. Sleep well. --rajofcanada (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rajofcanada: you should know by now that The Sun is a deprecated and unreliable source that is actively discouraged from being used in any article. You also seem not to be aware of the policy on writing about living people, which is one of WIkipedia's most important policies as it has legal ramifications. Everything related to a living person must be sourced properly and need to be from a neutral point of view. In this case it appears you are using the pages as a place to paint your own views as it appears from this comment that you added it due to your own opinion that it is warranted, and ignoring multiple of Wikipedia's policies in the process. As JoelleJay pointed out there are also issues with original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia especially in regards to living people, and the use of many questionable self-published sources which are absolutely not reliable. Again, you need reliable sources saying that everything is an actual nickname used, otherwise it is just a indiscriminate collection of information (which Wikipedia is not) with no valid selection criteria: Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.

I do not see how WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. As that very section states, Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted). (emphasis mine.) eviolite (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: W–Z, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Leopold III of Austria, Blanca of Navarre and Richard Nash.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation pages

Please fix the links to disambiguation pages you add to your nickname lists. I see the bot has been notifying you of them, so you know where to find them. Don't leave these for others to fix. Lennart97 (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:*List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: P

A tag has been placed on Draft:*List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: P requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under CSD G6

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:*List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: P and List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: P. It is disruptive of the time of others to leave a copy in draft, especially active on the AfC queue, after having created a CFORK'd copy in mainspace. Please check that this was a one-off genuine mistake and you have no further examples of such CFORKs about. Please also note doing a copy/fork CFORK from draft could in some cases cause a copy violation if another user has made a contribution, though this was not the case here. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Alyo (chat·edits) 15:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)