Hello, ZeroAlpha87!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, S0091 (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZeroAlpha87, I noticed you "undid" (reverted) several of your edits at Order of the Garter using the undo function. An easier way to to revert a series of edits is to pull up the last "good" version from History. Click on the time/date stamp in History which will pull up that version, there will be a box at top with a link [restore this version], just click that and it will revert all edits that occurred afterward in one click/one edit. If you ever have questions or need help, you can ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia is a work in progress. It may take years for articles to be created, but, as you have discovered, redlinks are acceptable for articles that should be created at some point in the future. This means that when the article is created, the links are already in place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I provided an explanation in my edit summaries: MOS:HONORIFIC. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the sections within the Manual of Style that I have contravened, please. I am happy to conform to a house style (so long as it is not wrong, no matter how long established), but, in those particular articles, I believe it is necessary to differentiate between how recipients were styled when the orders were conferred and how they went on to be styled. For example, in the article titled 'Royal Family Order of Edward VII', which I have not edited, it *does* give the recipients' styles at the time of their becoming members; why is it different for the other articles? I look forward to hearing from you. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you already, several times. We don't use honorific prefixes on wikipedia. The style I'm reverting to is the same style at Royal Family Order of Edward VII. "Queen Alexandra" is no different from "Queen Alexandra" and claiming they are different is absurd. DrKay (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, especially regarding Queen Alexandra? The issue is not whether 'we' use honorific prefixes on Wikipedia; I said that I am happy to conform to this, and could easily remove all the 'HM's and 'HRH's. However, I object to your changing back articles to having some people listed with their titles/styles as they are now, or later became, and others listed with their titles/styles as they were at the time the orders were presented to them. For example, Princess Margaret became The Countess of Snowdon in 1961, and Princess Alexandra became The Hon Lady Ogilvy in 1988; the article on Edward VII's order appears to consider this point. This inconsistent approach is, unfortunately, what I have come to expect, not helped by a rigid approach to maintaining style, regardless of how arguably ill-conceived it is, at the expense of sense. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Alexandra is called Queen Alexandra at the Edward VII article. DrKay (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: another example of the inconsistency that I keep raising! Note what is below her name in that article: 'The Princess of Wales later Queen Mary', for example. I should argue that 'Queen Alexandra' should, therefore, be 'The Queen later Queen Alexandra'; the only reason that I have not changed it to this is that I did only the articles on Elizabeth II, George VI and George V in the time that I had available earlier today. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just call her Queen Alexandra at all the articles. DrKay (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay, I do not understand your approach to this at all; there appears to be no logic to it, from my perspective. I, therefore, recommend no further communication on the issue - here or anywhere. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]