User talk:HelenOnline

Wiki Loves Monuments: Stellenbosch treasure hunt

Hi Helen,

As I mentioned at the end of July I am putting together a Treasure hunt for Wiki Loves Monuments in Stellenbosch. I have booked a table for us all to meet at the Dorp Street Deli at 56 Dorpstreet for 10am on Saturday the 14th September. We can move out at 11am and be done by around 2pm. I would like to end the event at a nearby location with Internet access so that we can do an upload marathon the same day. I think the best location will be the Stellenbosch library on Plein Street.

A list of heritage sites in Stellenbosch can be found at List_of_heritage_sites_in_Stellenbosch. I would love to see us take as many pictures of these locations on the list as we can.

I would like to know if you could help me make this event happen by inviting people to join us in taking pictures of monuments from around the historical centre of Stellenboch and upload them onto the commons?

Please let me know if you are still interested in joining us. It would be great to have you join us!

Thanks

Douglas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discott (talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Douglas, I plan to join you provided it's not raining. I have just finished cleaning up List of heritage sites in Stellenbosch. HelenOnline 15:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For Satanic Panic (South Africa) - a brilliant article :). Ironholds (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :) HelenOnline 20:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Identity & alienation.

Hi, Helen Zille (it can't be you?)

Nonetheless, any from of discourse is paramount to progress society without any prejudice.

Clearly, you understand my view, and your view I apprehend to an extent. As the content I'm disputing is disputable and thus open for scrutiny from all relevant stakeholders.

I'm an Afrikaner. So to be clear, this stand your taking, reflects the stand of those who are in power. I implore that throughout this discourse that preconceived ideas, or old taboos are taken out of context. History is written by those who are in power. There's my version of the truth, then there's your version of the truth, and then there is the truth.

So then, my question what is the truth? Is the Afrikaner indigenous, or thus intruders? Are they European or African? Where do we draw the line? What defines your Africanism? How may races are there, one, or are we as a nation group representative of one race each? Are we not all indigenous? All of these question are relevant to this identity discourse. The ancestry of an new ethnicity, does they define them? Is those of European origin the only colonisers in South Africa? etcetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland Postma (talk • contribs) 08:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from edit warring and discuss this on the article's talk page. You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is about. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. HelenOnline 09:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Civil recognition of Jewish divorce

The article Civil recognition of Jewish divorce has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original research largely by its creator as part of his series of work also of original research on the theme of the subject of the Conflict of laws; only an Israeli Jewish (religious) divorce can be recognized by civil authorities overseas, and that is only an automatic legal right in domestic law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland; the article is unnecessarily, unacceptably and unreasonably hypothetical and legalistic, and ought to be merged with the main article, being Get (divorce document).

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have only added one wikilink to this article so am far from its author and it is not necessary to notify me. HelenOnline 06:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Edward IV and G.E. Cokayne

Hi Helen, RE - Ancestry of Catherne, Duchess of Cambridge. You might like to know that in Volume X, page 34, copyright 1945, S11568, The Complete Peerage of England..." by G.E. Cokayne, it is clear that there was issue from the Plantaganet- Lumley marriage

http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p1924.htm

You may also be interested in a published book (by Pen and Sword Books) It was published in Feb. 2013 - called "Tracing Your Aristocratic Ancestors". It is written by royal geneaologist Anthony Adolph (please see his web site). Chapter 6 is called "Heraldry" and it deals with the indisputable descent of the duchess of Cambridge from Edward IV.

Good Luck! Cheers Mike (Ted) Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.90.209 (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have responded on the article's talk page as there are other editors involved. HelenOnline 13:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Helen, You might like to refer to Cracroft's page - he, along with many geneaologists - is in absolutley no doubt that their was issue from the Lumley - Plantagenent marriage - (which includes descendants such as the Queen Mother).

http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/catherinemiddleton.htm

This is, as I am sure you know, a ludicrous situation. So many geneaologists have published this Edward IV ancestry of Kate Middleton's: C.Hall, A.Adolph, Cracroft and of course, Burke's Perrage and Cokayne. Here is the original (longer) version which he had on his website, (albeit briefly)-

"The Complete Peerage article on the Lords Lumley (Vol VIII p.274) does not say that there were no children from this marriage (patently not, as Richard, 4th Lord Lumley, was the son of Sir Thomas Lumley and Elizabeth Plantagenet) but that there was no evidence of the marriage. Given that the marriage was in the late 15th century this is not unusual. In the Addenda & Corrigenda to the Complete Peerage (p.457) Peter Hammond gives two sources for the evidence for this marriage. His last sentence reads: “The assertion that there were any issue is certainly not true”. Given Peter’s earlier comments, this is obviously a typo and it should read: “The assertion that there was no issue is certainly not true.”

Hope this helps. Use his specific facts (page numbers etc) in the article if necessary. You seem a very capable editor - moreso than me!! Michael E. Reed