User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles/Archive2

Hello! Most (almost all) books which refer to Eleanor of Austria actually refer to the Queen of Portugal and France. Thus, she is the primary topic. When we do need disambiguation, it is commonly held that parenthetical disambiguation should be avoided. Don't you think that Eleanor of Austria, Queen of Poland is more useful than Eleanor of Austria (1653–1697)? If you were looking for the article about Queen Eleanor of Poland, either by typing into the searchbox or by going through categories, which title would be more useful? Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What consistency? That article is not the only one to have a title with such disambiguation. I have explained why I moved Eleanor of Austria and Eleanor of Austria, Queen of Poland. The explanation is right above this message. The moves were certainly legitimate; you were bold (which is good) and moved the articles, I disagreed and reverted. If you strongly believe that the articles should be moved, you have every right to propose the move and have a discussion. That's how it's done. Marital titles are usually thought to be better disambiguators than years of birth and death; this is one example. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur le Duc,

Please go to her talk page & also to mine where Robert Allen left a msg & where I answered him.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur le Duc,

Terriblement désolée, mais je ne suis pas d'accord pour le titre Hôtel de Mademoiselle de Condé, car Hôtel de Bourbon-Condé est le seul correct.

"Chicken", --Frania W. (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur le Duc, after giving my thoughts on what the name of the article should be, I did not want to take the decision of moving the article: others are involved in the discussion & a poll was created [1] to which you did not respond. So why don't you vote on it?

Thank you for worrying about my health; as usual, I am battling a few windmills & not involved in anything else as très occupée outside of Wikiland.

Hoping all's well with you also. Cordialement, Chicken, --Frania W. (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. - dwc lr (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved them to those names in the first place thank you. And some foolish editor reverted them back! So therefore I am in the right as he should not have have reverted those edits in the first place!! As a result, you have added to the problem i was trying to sort and and shall continue doing! Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles 15:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to “rectify” a situation do so through the proper channel not by destroying page histories. Obviously if they were moved back your moves are controversial and disputed so you should initiate a move discussion in future not act unilaterally to change how an entire Royal House is referred! - dwc lr (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you are copy and pasting articles again when it was just yesterday that I warned you not to do that? Please do not copy and paste articles! - dwc lr (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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 Wikipedia: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) 03:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Monsieur! My article on Maria of Modena is not yet finished, but I would be happy to publish it if you wanted to begin adding to it. I'll move the article sometime later today. Feel free to edit it all you want! Thanks. Au revoir, Ruby2010 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I just moved it. Happy editing! Ruby2010 (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur le Duc,

I just read your new piece & added a few accents. I also have a couple of questions:

1) Does not he originally belong to the House of Albert and later became the head of the House of Luynes ?

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famille_d%27Albert

2) When you say that he was Governor of Paris, do you mean "military governor"? Because, if so, there is a wiki article named Military governor of Paris. I do not see his name in the list, and he should be there.

3) Why did you remove "Marie" in the title of the article?

Cordialement, "Chicken" --Frania W. (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur le Duc! Chez moi pour la réponse de Madame. --Frania W. (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur le Duc,

Since you removed the places of birth & death in the lead [2], we do not know where she died...  ! Also, baptismal records from the église Saint-Sulpice in Paris, show Charlotte-Jeanne born in October 1738: [3]

Cordialement,

Madame

P.S. --Frania W. (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC) (had forgotten to sign !)[reply]

Monsieur le Duc, wat owfull spaling ar yu tocking ebowt? Troulé iours, Madame

--Frania W. (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur leDuc,

No reason to let things bother you. These issues keep coming up with first one name then another, and they should not upset our lives. Keep on doing the best you can.

Cordialement

Madame says: stay cool. --Frania W. (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved UserLouisPhilippeCharles/Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans to User:LouisPhilippeCharles/Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans. I note that some of the articles in your user space seem to be hoaxes - what is this Elysian Empire?? A few words of explanation would help. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans" is a personal page!" Yes, so why did you put her in the (article) namespace? I have repeated the move. Please look carefully. UserLouisPhilippeCharles/Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans is in the (article) namespace. User:LouisPhilippeCharles/Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans is a personal page. Can you see the difference? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur le Duc,

I shall when I have time, it's a long piece. What are you doing? Re-writing it?

SOOT!

Madame, --Frania W. (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur le Duc,

Madame shall look at all of them when she has more time as right now she is tight up with things outside of Wikiplanet.

Votre humble servante (!) --Frania W. (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur le Duc,

I read your piece; it needs some editing which I'll try doing section by section as time permits. Will let you know when I meet a "bone" (= un os).

Madame --Frania W. (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LouisPhilippeCharles! You should read WP:No personal attacks. By attack, I mean calling a user ignorant and arrogant. I understand that you can't stand ignorance. Few people can. But you should not describe other users as ignorant or arrogant. You can prove that someone is ignorant without actually calling someone ignorant. You have no reason to apologise to me; I do suggest, however, that you apologise to FactStraight as soon as possible. You are a valuable editor and that is why I would not like to see you blocked - which is where "you are so arrogant" eventually leads. I will try to fix the problems FactStraight quoted when removing text. I hope that will solve the problem.

I am from Bosnia and Herzegovina. You? Are you asking because you have noticed that English is not my first language? Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LouisPhilippeCharles! I'm fine yes are you? I do like medieval history its my favourite topic and yes Lady Gaga! Do you like her? Thanks--David (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LPC yeah I’m ok thanks, how’s it going? I moved the Ameli, Duchess of Oldenburg article because she is married to the Duke of Oldenburg (Anton-Günther, Duke of Oldenburg) so I put it from her maiden to married title. I go to Middlesex Uni btw. - dwc lr (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stands for:

• Stay
• Out
• Of
• Trouble

Une petite suggestion: de sincères excuses à FactStraight sont de rigueur. All you have to do is click on his "talk".

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HI LPC, I think you should initiate a move discussion if you want to change how an entire family is titled. - dwc lr (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again why are you still moving articles by copying and pasting, thus destroying the page history? - dwc lr (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit leads me to believe you are not aware of what you are doing, let me show you an example. You created this article Amélie d'Orléans [4] by copying and pasting text from Amélie of Orléans [5] in doing so you destroyed over four years of edit history, as the page "Amélie d'Orléans" only has a history going back to February.If you want to move the title of an article click on "move" if it doesn't let you DO NOT under any circumstance copy and paste the text to an article with a different name like you did with Amelie of Orleans. Read what I posted before User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles#Cut and paste and let me know if you still don't understand. - dwc lr (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That’s great that you moved the article I’m not interested in who is right and who is wrong, I’m not remotely interested in what the name of the Isabella d'Este article is, though if she is the only person called Isabella d'Este with an article I don’t see why add (1474-1539). Copy and pasting the content of an article to change the name of an article is not allowed for the reasons I gave. I still don’t think you have grasped this concept yet so try and explain again and demonstrate what I mean.

• Here you copied all the content from Francis, Count of Vendôme and redirected it to François, Count of Vendôme.
• Next you pasted all the content from Francis, Count of Vendôme to François, Count of Vendôme. Hence you changed the article name by copying and pasting content.

Do you understand how you are copying and pasting an article now? Just try to remember this you have been editing long enough and you have been told about it before you should have a grasp of this policy by now, thanks. - dwc lr (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok man I really don’t know what your problem is or what your on about :-S. I don’t really care either just don’t copy and paste. - dwc lr (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LouisPhilippeCharles. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, LouisPhilippeCharles. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		Awarded to LouisPhilippeCharles for the amazing work you do on royalty-related articles. I especially liked your recent template on the Modena duchesses - I've been wanting to make such a template for ages but it kept slipping my mind. So, again, good work on all the editing you do! Ruby2010 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I recently saw your Template:Duchesses of Aosta and I was wondering why are you listing them from the first consorts to the current holder of the title? It would be okay for extinct titles, but for living titles you should use the model Template:Princess Consorts of Orange starting with the incumbent consort in bold and then going backwards. Also I'm not sure if you should count titular queens on these templates.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering why you keep deleting the branch names of the royal houses of Aviz, Bourbon, Valois, Savoy and etc.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree because your logic will make the House of Valois, House of Bourbon, House of Burgundy, House of Artois, House of Courtenay and House of Anjou just better referred as the House of Capet,--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to your comments at my talk page. FactStraight (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As yet, you have not responded to the concerns I have been pointing out on the talk page for two years, and which I most recently explained in detail on the talk page at Redundant & trivial content -- again. Please let us have a dialogue about these issues, in hopes of working out a mutually acceptable solution that will prevent the kind of edit-warring which followed my recent attempts to edit this article. Thank you. FactStraight (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LouisPhilippe. I'm trying to help the pages about the Savoyard State. Unfortunately, the page about the Kingdom of Sardinia is under persistent attack by a user who is member of a Sardinian revisionist and nationalist party. I hope to protect wikipedia by his vandalism. Hi!--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: the IP seems to have latent sockpuppets in wiki, and he uses them to vandalize the page about the Kingdom of Sardinia. Can you help me to survey it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Bee Goo (talk • contribs) 21:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LouisPhilippe. Unfortunately it seems that the Kingdom of Sardinia page won't have peace...--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince/Princess of Savoy-Aosta and Savoy-Genoa is a title see the 1922 Almanach de Gotha for example. [6] - dwc lr (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm ok its not really silly though is it citing a high quality source! - dwc lr (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LPC why are you disguising the article names for the Orleans Princesses on the Duchesses of Aosta template I thought their title was Princess of Orleans and there "surname" was d'Orleans. Princess Hélène d'Orléans got moved by the way to fix your c&p destruction of the page history and is a redirect now you might want to put the correct article name in the template. - dwc lr (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw that you did an edit to the template; I was wondering if you would know why it does not show the location's of birth and death?! It confuses me lol HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not a code writer. I copy other templates when creating or editing them. As the template wasn't working well, I substituted it for the more generic {{Infobox person}} on the articles I was working on. I think the only difference is that Nobility uses colour. I would rather have a standard template that works than a non-standard one that doesn't. My suggestion would be to swap Nobility for Person. SilkTork *^YES! 18:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I should ask you why you keep moving pages. There was a discussion at the talk page in which we agreed that Beatrice of Portugal, Duchess of Savoy is the best title. It is not incorrect. She was "of Portugal" and she was Duchess of Savoy. What's incorrect about that? It's been confirmed in many discussions that marital titles are much better way of disambiguation than years of birth and death. See, for example, Talk:Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary, Talk:Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress, Talk:Margaret of Burgundy, Duchess of Bavaria, etc. Her not being queen consort or Duchess of Savoy in her own right means nothing. Please stop moving the article, request a move and start a discussion at the talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By marriage or not, she was Duchess of Savoy and it is entirely correct to call her Duchess of Savoy. And what are you talking about? Only one of those articles was moved back to the format that includes years and that article is about to be moved to the better title as well. I created no problem. The previous titles all redirect to the present titles. It is helping a lot; why? Read on Talk:Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary, Talk:Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress and Talk:Margaret of Burgundy, Duchess of Bavaria. Surtsicna (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I have already warned you about attacking other users personally. Others may have tolerated that, but I won't. Surtsicna (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people hypocrites is attacking people. So is saying that they are arrogant.[7] Surtsicna (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was just sorting out the categorisation as templates have their own cats. - dwc lr (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LouisPhilippeCharles. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding your conduct towards other users. Thank you. --WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 16:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Louis. I was wondering what source that says that Victor Amadeus I, Duke of Savoy and Francis Hyacinth, Duke of Savoy are Princes of Piedmont as heirs of the Dukes of Savoy? It seems that the title was part of the many titles of the Dukes of Savoy while he was reigning as Duke and not as Ducal heir.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, could you take a look at the report concerning you on the Wikiquette alerts page. Thanks in advance, WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LASTNAME, articles are supposed to use the person's last name, rather than first name. I'm going to make the appropriate changes on Anne Marie d'Orléans. Please keep that rule in mind in the future. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your latest comment on my talk page: I don't know what else to say to help you understand. For YEARS now I have pointed out to you on talk pages that you are including excessive TRIVIA in Wikipedia's bios on historical royalty and nobility. I have been extremely specific, on both the talk pages you've had under various IPs and on the talk pages of the articles, about what needs to be left out, so that you could see and make these corrections yourself. I have been patient so that you could make the edits. I have left a substantial portion of your trivia in the articles. I have nothing against you personally and think that you have made very valuable contributions to WP articles -- unfortunately, you persist in mixing trivia in with the valuable information -- and I do have a strong objection to trivia in an encyclopedia, particularly because many Wiki editors consider any biographical information about royalty/nobility to be trivial. Therefore, to protect and preserve the important facts and deeds in their biographies, a high standard of notability, relevance, and editorial selectivity is warranted. You have consistently ignored, mocked or attacked my concerns. Apparently you think that if you just ignore my input, I will stop attempting to maintain a high level of quality in royalty/nobility articles. Wrong. I hope that you will review the issues raised and contribute less trivia, redundancies, poor grammar, factual error and inappropriate tone to royalty articles. The Anne Marie d'Orleans article is now improved. More to come. FactStraight (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your exceeding Wikipedia's limit on the number of times you may revert article content, I have reported the obstructiveness for action. Please see the complaint I have filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I hope that in future we will be able to avoid coming to such an unfortunate pass. FactStraight (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for edit-warring on Anne Marie d'Orléans. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform you, I will not be closing the Wikiquette alert discussion regarding yourself until you apologize to FactStraight and Surtsicna. Regards, WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi there,

afaik queen consorts are never with their titles but normally "name of country". That is unless the Wikipedia rules have changed dramatically since I can last recall them. Gryffindor (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give François de Vendôme, Duc de Beaufort a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into François, Duke of Beaufort. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

I move the article to the current name citing a reliable source. If you still want to move the article then please put up for a requested move by following the instructions at WP:RM and we can discuss it further on the article's talk page. -- PBS (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a formal warning from an administrator.

I see from your archive pages that you have made other cut and past move. User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles/Archive2#Cut and paste and User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles/Archive2#Orleans-Braganza.

If you still do not understand why such copies are breaches of copyright then read the lead to Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (with special attention to the section Repairing cut and paste moves of a page). If there are sill points you do not understand then ask me for clarification.

User:DWC LR posted the {{uw-c&pmove}} template on your talk page, and I have just posted the same message in the section above. The template politely asked you "Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen".

Clearly you have not done this as User:DWC LR was made well over a month ago, so it is no longer a matter of good faith look back through your edit history and place any other cut and past moves in the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen.

If you do not look back through your edit history and place any other cut and past moves in the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen within a week of your next edit, or if after this posting you make any new cut and past moves. Your account may be blocked until you agree to help fix previous cut and past moves (by listing them in the holding pen) and not create any new cut an past moves. -- PBS (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your posting to my talk page. This is not an issue of editorial judgement. You must not move articles with cut and past. You must check your previous edits and if there any cut and past moves made by they have to be fixed. I will help you if you need help, but you will be better aware than I of any potential problems. -- PBS (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Here is a list of the major cut and pasted moves you have made (the two at the bottom were made after you had been asked not to make cut and past moves by User:DWC LR on 31 May 2010 through the use of a standard template:

name	date|fixed
Maria Francisca of Nemours	(-4227)	17:34, 29 October 2009	Y 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Paul, 6th duc de Noailles	(-2442)	21:34, 18 November 2009	Y 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Antoine, 1st comte de Noailles	(-711)	22:40, 18 November 2009	Y 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Armand de Bourbon, prince de Conti	(-4112)	15:42, 5 January 2010	Y 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Antoine, Duke of Montpensier	(-4720)	17:40, 14 January 2010	Y 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Charlotte of Bourbon	(-3513)	16:16, 30 January 2010	Y 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Vittoria Della Rovere	(-6371)	16:00, 27 February 2010	Y 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Francoise d'Orléans-Longueville	(-5673)	21:31, 11 March 2010	Y 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Marie Anne de Bourbon-Condé	(-584)	14:09, 22 March 2010	Y 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
François de Bourbon, prince de Conti	(-3101)	14:39, 24 March 2010	Y 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Théophile Corret de la Tour d'Auvergne	(-4794)	09:28, 29 March 2010	Y 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Paul François de Quelen de la Vauguyon	(-15252)	14:23, 16 April 2010	Y 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Prince Manuel, Count of Ourém	(-2719)	14:54, 14 July 2010	Y 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Claude of Lorraine	(-278)	12:17, 2 August 2010	Y 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And this François de Vendôme, Duc de Beaufort that I have already fixed. These need to be fixed and if you think that they need moving then use WP:RM to put in move requests (AFTER they have been fixed) -- PBS (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As they are fixed please add a tick with five tildes ({{tick}} ~~~~~) to the right of the table -- PBS (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him not to do this in March [8], and perhaps earlier as well. He takes no notice I'm afraid. It wasn't even a good move. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This pattern of massive cut-and-paste moves requiring others to fix or challenge them on talk pages was complained of on pages he was editing in February here and here. FactStraight (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FactStraight I am including you list below and I'll check them:

--PBS (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Louise of Orléans (1812–1850) As far as I can tell this one redirects to an article with an intact history, but on 9 February 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles made a cut and past edit to "Louise d'Orléans (1812–1850)". The edit was reverted for the "Louise of Orléans (1812–1850)" so we had a duplicate articles until 4 August 2010 when " Louise d'Orléans (1812–1850)" was changed back into a redirect. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Princess Marie Louise of Orléans (1896–1973) 3 Feb 2010 Anthony Appleyard merged the edit histories of this article with Princess Marie Louise d'Orléans to fix a cut an past problem caused by LouisPhilippeCharles. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Princess Marie Isabelle of OrléansI was a cut and past move. I fixed the historiesY 09:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Amélie of Orléans Cut and past move fixed with a history merge on 2 August 2010 by Anthony Appleyard -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Princess Hélène of Orléans Cut and past move fixed with a history merge on 2 August 2010 by user:Anthony Appleyard -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Princess Isabelle of Orléans (1878–1961) OK this one is fixed because after a cut and past move the edits were reverted in the usual way before an edit history built up for the alternative name. What concerns me is the reason for the cut and past move.
  • 23:36, 21 December 2009 LouisPhilippeCharles moved "Isabelle d'Orléans, duchesse de Guise" to "Princess Isabelle d'Orléans (1878–1961). Comment by PBS: bold move nothing wrong with it
  • 10:44, 3 February 2010 Anthony Appleyard moved Princess Isabelle d'Orléans (1878–1961) to Princess Isabelle of Orléans (1878–1961): Requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial
  • 22:45, 3 February 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles ←Redirected page to Princess Isabelle d'Orléans (1878–1961). Comment by PBS: a totally out of order attempt to revert a requested move instead of discussing it on the talk page or raising another WP:RM. Further it could have been done with a simple move. The move on 21 December 2009 shows that LouisPhilippeCharles was aware of how to move pages using the move tab. Further when the cut and past move was reverted the same day, LouisPhilippeCharles repeated the cut and past move six days later. In my opinion the history of the two articles shows a total lack of good faith editing by LouisPhilippeCharles. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Princess Isabelle of Orléans (1900–1983) This one is a duplicate of the behaviour LouisPhilippeCharles engaged in with the cut and past move of Princess Isabelle of Orléans (1878–1961) even the dates are the same! And like the previous one it was fixed by reversals of the cut and past moves. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Marie Louise d'Orléans (1662–1689) This one is complicated
  • There was an article called Marie Louise d'Orléans (1662–1689) which on the 3 February Anthony Appleyard as a requsted move moved it to Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689) (with it went the history of the article before the 2 Feb). The same day as with the ones above LouisPhilippeCharles cut and pasted the article content from the new RM name back to Marie Louise d'Orléans (1662–1689). This cut and past move was reverted on 9th. But on 12th (as with the pages above) LouisPhilippeCharles repeated the cut and past move. So far like the other articles. But then
  • at 20:32, 12 February 2010 user:DanyMountbatten makes a good faith move of the contents from Marie Louise d'Orléans (1662–1689) to Marie Louise of Orléans, Queen of Spain (and with it goes the history of article number 2).
  • We now have the copied content at Queen of Spain and a redirect to a redirect at Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689) which a bot fixes by redirecting it to Marie Louise of Orléans, Queen of Spain.
  • On 16 February LouisPhilippeCharles has preformed a second cut and past move. moving the content from Marie Louise of Orléans, Queen of Spain back to his preferred name of Marie Louise d'Orléans (1662–1689). The bot seeing that Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689) is pointing to a redirect (created by LouisPhilippeCharles) alters the redirect in the article to point to the article Marie Louise d'Orléans (1662–1689). So we now have thee articles with bits of history in each the main history is in Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689).

But that is not where the story ends with the article currently at Marie Louise d'Orléans (1662–1689)!

There was another cut and past move on 1 July 16:03, 1 July 2009 to create Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689) by User:Tbharding which is an old name for User:LouisPhilippeCharles It turns out that through cut an past moves User:Tbharding had also split the history between articles. Here is a full trace:

• At 07:10, 24 October 2007 the content of Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689) was moved to Maria Luisa of Orléans, That was moved again to Marie Louise of Orléans So here is a full history of the article which thanks to a number of edits by the same editor using two different names is spread out over five articles.
• Maria Luisa of Orléans First history from creation as a stub in 2005 up to 02:29, 4 August 2008
• Marie Louise of Orléans Second history created by a cut and past move by User:Tbharding (alias User:LouisPhilippeCharles) on 17:11, 13 August 2008 to 16:03, 1 July 2009 when User:Tbharding redirects it to Marie Louise d'Orléans
• Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689) Third history, created by a cut and past move by User:Tbharding at 16:03, 1 July 2009 under the name Marie Louise d'Orléans which gets moved several times but the last time by AA as a requested move to Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689)
• Marie Louise of Orléans, Queen of Spain Fourth history, a small history 3 to 12 February 2010 cut and past moves by User:LouisPhilippeCharles
• Marie Louise d'Orléans (1662–1689) Fifth history, created with a cut and past move at 11:05, 16 February 2010 and is the current article.

Because this is so fragmented instead of trying to merge them I am instead going to post this history to the current article talk page so that the history is known, and so that it is kept of a record of just how destructive cut and past moves are. --PBS (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:LouisPhilippeCharles I have now finished a review of these articles and you have been creating no end of work for users and administers to clean up the mess you have been making for a number of years. It is clear from the articles I have looked at that even if you were not aware of the move function originally, you have been making cut and past moves since you have been making moves with the move tab. It is also clear from this edit history that you have also been making moves to revert WP:RM moves made by an administrator without seeking any form of consensus on the talk pages and making at least some of those moves using cut and past, even though you were aware of how the move tab works. I can only conclude that this was a bad faith attempt to by pass the WP:RM process. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you make any cut and past move in the future and it is brought to my attention I will block your account. If you reverse any move made through the WP:RM process without initiating a WP:RM process to reverse the change and it is brought to my attention I will block you account. If an article about a French man or woman, has been Anglicised with the use of "of" in place of "d'" or "de" and you move it to a name using the French "d'" or "de" (upper or lowercase), and you have not sought a consensus on the article's talk page, (preferably using WP:RM as proof of widespread consultation), I will block your account. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Your information I have requested a contributor copyright investigation to look at your edit history and to fix the cut and past moves you have made. I would suggest that as an act of good faith you participate in this process sooner than later. -- PBS (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page:

Hey, sorry was on holiday hence my late reply! And DWC LR I was not aware of the template you put on my page thank you so give me a break! Anyway, where do you want me?! I do not want to sound dim but tell me what to do and I will do it =] I feel silly Monsieur le Duc (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Until I saw that you had been using the move tab since 22:34 on 27 May 2008 (when as user:Tbharding you moved Louis-Auguste de Bourbon, Duke of Maine to Louis-Auguste de Bourbon, duc du Maine with the comment "‎in keeping with similar pages with french titles"), and had still made cut and past moves after that, to revert WP:RM moves requested by other users, I had assumed good faith (that you had made these moves in ignorant good faith), I no longer have that good faith in your actions to believe you when you say "And DWC LR I was not aware of the template you put on my page thank you so give me a break!".

You need to read what I have posted here on your talk page and then suggest at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Requests how you will help to fix the mess you have created.

I would suggest that the first thing you need to do is declare on you user page any other accounts that you have ever used (or state below that you have never used any other accounts. The second I would do if I were you is immediately post to the Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Requests that you intend to list all the pages where you have made cut and past moves that have not been fixed with a revert or a merge. The over the next day or so go through you edit history of both accounts and make such a list (with the names of the pages and the date you made the cut and past move). You do not have to put all the entries in the list all in one go, but make it a speedy work in progress. If you do that you will go a long way to restoring my faith in your intentions (and probably do so for other editors). -- PBS (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at your edit history over the last since you lasted posted to my talk page at 14:56, 23 August 2010. You have made well over 50 edit and have not begun to address your cut and past moves.

One of the pages you have been editing is talk:Princess Maria Ana of Savoy were you have put a request on the talk page that the article be moved to Princess Maria Anna of Savoy yet that is a redirect to Maria Anna of Savoy So no the move can not take place because you need to discuss on talk:Maria Anna of Savoy what should be done as there are apparently two women with the same name. See Talk:Maria Anna of Savoy#Is a dab page needed? -- PBS (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You put a message on Talk:Francoise d'Orléans-Longueville but this is clearly not correct I have now merged the histories of the articles. But see the entries:

• diffs (cur | prev) 21:31, 11 March 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles (talk | contribs | block) (5,720 bytes) (undo)
• diffs (cur | prev) 21:31, 11 March 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles (talk | contribs | block) (47 bytes) (rv to correct letters) (undo)

You really need to start to address you cut and past history of moves BEFORE you edit more for example while looking at your recent edit history I noticed this one : Princess Louise Élisabeth of France, history (your last edit 7 August 2010) is a cut and past from Louise Élisabeth of France made by you on 17 August 2009. -- PBS (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since your request for a list of other names used to make changes, I haven't seen any supplied, so here is a partial list to get you started (excluding BoBo, whom I erroneously thought was one of user:Tbharding's socks 2 years ago and IPs beginning with "216" which turned out to be other anons). Most of Tbharding/LouisPhilippeCharles's socks weren't used to move/cut-and-paste/re-direct articles without regard for edit histories, but some were, as shown in this dif. FactStraight (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another cut and past move from Prince Eugenio, Count of Villafranca to Eugenio, Count of Villafranca. -- PBS (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to make Princes of Savoy a template? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.  :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that the heir to the head of the house of Savoy is consistently called "Prince of Piedmont"; this is not an uncommon error and has been repeated in several English-language works. Victor Amadeus III never used this title when he was heir; he was always styled "Duke of Savoy". I have numerous books which refer to him in this way, e.g. Cultura figurative a architettonica negli Stati del Re di Sardegna I, 4, which refers to a painting by Giuseppe Dupra "La famiglia di Vittorio Amedeo duca di Savoia (poi Vittorio Amedeo III)" (the word "poi" means "later"). Please be so kind as to change back all the pages where you have called Victor Amadeus III "Prince of Piedmont" when he was heir. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad that you didn't take any offense (especially as none was intended). I've even seen some Italian works which get this wrong. One useful older work is "Tavole genealogiche della real casa di Savoia" (available on Google Books): Vittorio Amedeo (III) "portò il titolo di duca di Savoia prima di regnare". His eldest son, the future Carlo Emanuele IV, did have the title "Prince of Piedmont" from his birth (when his grandfather was king) until he succeeded himself as king. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HI LPC, I think some of your generations on Template:Princes of Savoy are mixed up, I fixed some earlier but I notice father and son Louis Victor, Prince of Carignan and Eugenio, Count of Villafranca are both listed as 11th generation, you might wanna double check the generations and make sure everything is correct. - dwc lr (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anne Marie d'Orléans. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to direct your attention to my remarks at Talk:Louis, Prince of Condé (1621–1686). I'm not sure I understand the rationale for not using commonly used ordinals for the princes of Condé and instead disambiguating by birth and death years (and with an ndash, no less!). john k (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm afraid I've started a community reassessment of an article you recently nominated as a Good Article, Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier, as I don't feel that it meets all of the GA criteria yet. The reassessment can be found at the article reassessment page. Please feel free to make any comments there.--BelovedFreak 18:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi LPC, I have reviewed your article Philippe I, Duke of Orléans. You can find my constructive comments here: Talk:Philippe I, Duke of Orléans/GA1. Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Great! I look forward to reading the article when you make all the necessary changes. And my apologies for thinking your first language wasn't English. I assumed with your love of French history and different way of writing that you spoke French first!  :) Ruby2010 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi LPC, other reviewers and myself were wondering when you will make the improvements to Philippe I, Duke of Orléans, as it had been over a month since it was reviewed. You have three days to fix the article, or the review will be failed, unfortunately. Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dates are the worst disambiguation. If you think otherwise, discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Consorts with ambigious names. It may look like that to you because you got used to such forms at Wikipedia, but a reader would find "Duchess of Bourbon" a much more descriptive and useful disambiguator than "(1673-1743)". Surtsicna (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for your userspace, please read Wikipedia:User pages#Categories, templates, and redirects. You must not add categories or links to other Wikipedias. It's not "private" if anyone can find it in a category. Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You leave me no option; I have to warn an administrator about your behaviour. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this move is wise? First Prince of the Blood was the most senior male in the House of Bourbon who was not within the King's immediate family, and the wives' of brothers of king's are show on this list.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you mean. The sister-in-laws of the King of France were not First Princess of the Blood.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give your opinion on Talk:Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias#Move.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported your behaviour to User:Philip Baird Shearer‎. Surtsicna (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to look at your recent moved of Margarita Teresa of Spain, Maria Anna of Spain and Joanna of Bourbon and also an allegation that "When he realises that he can't move an article to the title he desires, he adds an unneccessary disambiguation so that he can move it (Talk:Joanna of Bourbon)."

The edit history of Margarita Teresa of Spain :

• 11:54, 12 October 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles
• 11:54, 12 October 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles (moved Margarita Teresa of Spain to Margarita Teresa of Austria over redirect) (undo)
• 11:42, 12 October 2010 Surtsicna
• 11:41, 12 October 2010 Surtsicna (moved Margarita Teresa of Austria to Margarita Teresa of Spain over redirect: Says who? She is ALWAYS known as "M-T of Spain". People know that Velzquez painted an Infanta of Spain; they don't know that she was an Archduchess of Austria.)
• 01:59, 12 October 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles (→Portraits)
• 01:56, 12 October 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles (→External links)
• 01:54, 12 October 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles (moved Margarita Teresa of Spain to Margarita Teresa of Austria: Austria takes precedence over Spain due to her paternity..)

Which (coupled to your prior behaviour User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles/Archive2#Warning: Do not make cut and past moves) is enough user:LouisPhilippeCharles to show that you are breaking acceptable behaviour for moving a page. Therefore see the subsection immediately below this one. -- PBS (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to lack the level of judgement that most other editors show regarding page moves as part of consensus editing: In future if you want to make a page move that you think is uncontroversial you must announce you intent to move a page on the talk page of the article 24 hours before you make the move. If you think that the move MAY be controversial, or if anyone objects, or if another editor reverts the move then, if you still want the move made, you must put in a Requested move for under the provisions of "controversial and potentially controversial moves". Breach of this warning (as with my last warning to you) will be considered disruptive and will lead to administrative action. -- PBS (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- PBS (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the danger of revert warring over page moves rather than move it back yourself I suggest you put in a WP:RM#Uncontroversial requests in such cases because reverting such a request without a contested W:RM would be viewed as disruption by most of the regular RM administrators. -- PBS (talk)

The article Marie Jeanne of Savoy you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Marie Jeanne of Savoy for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I placed this warning

This is the last warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you make any cut and past move in the future and it is brought to my attention I will block your account. If you reverse any move made through the WP:RM process without initiating a WP:RM process to reverse the change and it is brought to my attention I will block you account. If an article about a French man or woman, has been Anglicised with the use of "of" in place of "d'" or "de" and you move it to a name using the French "d'" or "de" (upper or lowercase), and you have not sought a consensus on the article's talk page, (preferably using WP:RM as proof of widespread consultation), I will block your account. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

On your talk page at the time stated at the end of the warning. The section from which it comes documents a huge mess that you created. One that you have not attempted to clear up, which does little to show good faith on your behalf. It has been bought to my attention by user:Surtsicna that you have ignored the warning. I have checked the revision history of Joanna of Bourbon and it is clear that you made these moves:

• 12:07, 12 October 2010 LouisPhilippeCharle (moved Joanna of Bourbon to Jeanne de Bourbon, Queen of France over redirect: there is another disambiguation page so this name is the most logical arguments aside)
• 01:58, 21 October 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles (moved Joanna of Bourbon to Jeanne de Bourbon, Queen of France over redirect)

The history of the article's talk page is striking. The last comment on the talk page was made by me at 21:01, 12 October 2010 (after you move documented above) which I made after user:Surtsicna brought the move to my attention in it I specifically said:

User:LouisPhilippeCharles you have made your point another editor has objected, so if you still want to have this page moved put in a WP:RM request. -- PBS (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You have ignored both that talk page instruction, the warning I placed on your talk page the same day and the very specific detail in the August warning about moving pages to names with "de" in them.

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by PBS (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC) For the reasons listed above I have blocked you account indefinitely or until you agree not to breach the conditions laid out in the two warnings I have issued to you. If in future you then breach those conditions expect a long block. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LouisPhilippeCharles (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My actions regarding Jeanne de Bourbon may have been seen as over the top but I moved her in good faith to what could easily be argued as her correct name. I may seem like I do not listen but I refuse to be belittled by other users. I have done a vast amount of work on Wikipedia and am a good editor! I should be unblocked for that reason alone

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. You have been warned many times about how to correctly move pages using WP:RM, and you have repeatedly ignored that advice. Your statement, "but I refuse to be belittled by other users", shows no willingness to work to a consensus, as is expected by Wikipedia Policy.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LouisPhilippeCharles (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Give me a chance and I will. This just makes me look stupid to be honest and I don't want that, at all! I will work to everyone's advantage from now on Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 8:26 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. TNXMan 02:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your answer is not clear. All you have to do is to unequivocally agree to abide by the terms I laid out in the warnings and I will unblock your account. If you then break that agreement which you will have made with the your fellow editors you can expect a very long block as your word will not be your bond. -- PBS (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LouisPhilippeCharles (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My previous statement was valid was it not!? I have said I will not be difficult. I will not be rude. I will not reverts other peoples work without giving a relevant statement. I will not lash out to other users (regardless of their actions towards me) and I will seek advice where suitable. What more can I possibly say?! Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have given no indication at all of either taking note of the reason for your unblock or intending to avoid the same type of editing in the future. Asssurances that you will not lash out or be rude are interesting, but not relevant to the reason for your block. Also it is not sufficient to tell us that you will not make the same kind of unilateral changes you have made "without giving a relevant statement": we must have reason to believe that you will not make them at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

My request is not that you will promise not be difficult, or rude, or revert other peoples work without giving a relevant statement or lash out at other users. I asked you to state clearly and unequivocally that you agree to abide by the conditions laid out in the warnings I placed on your talk page. Feel free to ask any questions about the conditions you do not understand and I will clarify. But I will not unblock your account until you agree to abide to those conditions. -- PBS (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LouisPhilippeCharles (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As I have wrote, I have said that I will change my ways :S I don't want this to be the case at all. It's not like I like having to be blocked despite shooting myself in the foot. I am more than aware of of why I have been blocked because of my actions. In the previous statement [My previous statement was valid was it not!?...What more can I possibly say?] is an apology, of sorts. Sorry.

Decline reason:

What you can say is "I agree unequivocally and with no qualification that I will abide by the restrictions laid down by User:Philip Baird Shearer on my talk page at 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)." JohnCD (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|I agree unequivocally and with no qualification that I will abide by the restrictions laid down by User:Philip Baird Shearer on my talk page at 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Has promised to abide by the restrictions laid down by PBS. Request handled by: Favonian (talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.