![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 22 |
English Wikipedia was not the Associated Press. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 12:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Just a bit confused as to why you removed this well known & relevant fact w/o explaining. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 14:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Might be best to seek a change at
WP:NCROY, as we've a rapid growing number of RMs concerning monarch bio articles.
GoodDay (
talk) 00:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Howdy. Just curious what's your views on @ Doomer1557:'s attempted additions to succession boxes, of when a monarch or president was the oldest head of state? GoodDay ( talk) 16:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I will agree with you on most of your points, however, I disagree about the lower capitalization in the infobox, "Prime minister before election" and "Prime minister before election". Would we need to change the infoboxes of the entire electoral history of the pages for the United Kingdom and Australia to align with Singapore's? I am not really not enthused in getting into disputes with other editors over 50 pages for a simple capital M for the words "minister".
I would appreciate your advice, and your backing, if I were to do it alone. Seloloving ( talk) 10:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I would just to add my point that the entire electoral history for the pages of Japan, Malaysia and Turkey capitalises the M in the infobox as well. If they are all wrong, we should really ask someone to verify this before making changes across hundreds of infoboxes as I am sure they are all copied from some template based on the similarities. Seloloving ( talk) 11:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
[1], what do you think, improvement or not? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, greetings. I'm not pleased to be reverted, and certainly not a second time, but here I am. For aesthetic reasons, I don't like red links in lead and infobox, because they take undue attention, imho. Others may handle that differently. I respect when users don't want an infobox, for example. I am perfectly willing to write the articles (here "her article" tomorrow), and then establish the link. - Now, if you don't agree, could you please not have a bare red link, where she could have an interlanguage link, as later in the article? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you always show up where I edit. Is this just a coincidence? i.e. Duchess of Sussex and Pippa Middleton: jk
cookie monster (2020)
755 18:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Surtsicna, you've been quite active in sorting out the articles for various monarchs and their names and titles, so I wonder if you'd be interested in a proposal of mine on that subject. Presently, the articles on the post- Union of the Crowns monarchs in what is now but was then not yet the UK[ofGBNI] handles their regnal numbers quite oddly and sometimes adds "of England" where it is either unnecessary or misleading. My proposals would be:
This would: 1.) reduce the pipeage, 2.) reduce the misleading impression of having "of England" appended to the Stuart monarchs gives, and 3.) give a generally more balanced and less anglocentric impression what these monarchs were monarchs of. Let me know what you think and whether it would be worth setting up an RfC on the issue. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
In an edit to the article Alexander, Prince of Scotland ( Revision as of 23:44, 9 April 2019) you included a short citation to "Prestwich 1998, p. 356-357" unfortunately you forgot to supply the long citation. Is this the correct long citation (obtained from the article Margaret of Scotland, Queen of Norway):
I ask because in the article Margaret of Scotland, Queen of Norway the short citation is also broken (date mismatch) and its short citation has the same date and page numbers as the short citation in the Alexander, Prince of Scotland article (Prestwich 1998, p. 356-357). -- PBS ( talk) 20:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I fixed that one, but it has lead me to another diff. You added the short citation "Oram 2002, p. 107." to the article Margaret of Scotland, Queen of Norway on 9 April 2019 would the long citation to that be the same as the one in Margaret, Maid of Norway:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)There is another similar mismatch problems with Margaret, Maid of Norway. There is a "Reid 1990," in some of the short citation and "Reid 1982" in other short citations with a long citation of "Reid, Norman H. (1982)." You added both long and the short citations in a series of edits back in April 2019 ( diff on some of them). Do you have a long citation to support the short "Reid 1990" citations?
-- PBS ( talk) 21:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
Was I right in assuming that the Richard Oram (2002) listed above is the missing long citation that the article Margaret of Scotland, Queen of Norway? -- PBS ( talk) 08:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, If you don't like a category, the approach is NOT to empty all the contents, but to take it to Cfd. This is a gross breach of all procedure, which I would not have expected from you. Not everyone is likely to agree with your personal opinion that it is not defining. Cfd is probably quicker anyway. I will revert all your changes, using rollback if you don't mind. Feel free to take it to Cfd. Johnbod ( talk) 14:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
As a foreigner, I was not supposed to be aware of that (now I will, of course :-). In the future, to avoid revert wars, state such things clearly in the edit summary. "Same thing" is a hardly helpful edit summary. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Note: Some recent changes have been made to Queen Sofia of Spain's main lead & infobox heading. GoodDay ( talk) 12:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
We're getting Sofia & Letizia mixed up. GoodDay ( talk) 13:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | On 11 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grigorije Durić, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Serbian Orthodox Church denounced Bishop Grigorije Durić for suggesting that the Serbian government should fund hospitals rather than churches during the COVID-19 pandemic in the country? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grigorije Durić. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear Surtsina, Your editing is welcome to make the page accurate. Please note that E.Lippens was not born with a title: https://gothanjou.blog/2019/07/25/les-maisons-du-gotha-bismarck-2/ Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.51.246.126 ( talk) 10:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Your attention is called to the addition of this display to the article on the Central Business District, Los Angeles (1880s-1890s). Do you have any feelings, for or against? Discussion should take place on that article's Talk page. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 18:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I draw your eyes to this article. PAustin4thApril1980 ( talk) 03:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Winnowing Fan Barnstar | |
For your good work on highlighting the wheat by removing royalty-cruft chaff. // Timothy :: talk 18:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC) |
![]() |
Surtsicna, this cup of coffee is on me, for your continued diligence in ensuring that articles for royal biographies meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I regret that many of my earlier articles on Wikipedia fell short of meeting these guidelines and policies, and I appreciate your efforts to root them out as consensus warrants. Thank you, and cheers! West Virginian (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC) |
I noticed that you contributed to the George IV requested move discussion. Just FYI, there is a very similar requested move discussion on George III if you wish to contribute. Rreagan007 ( talk) 23:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Christchurch mosque shootings 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Sjö ( talk) 07:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Lecen & his friends, are not gonna like you, over at Pedro II of Brazil, but you're correct. That article does have 'neutrality' issues. GoodDay ( talk) 15:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
PS: I restored your NPOV tag at the article-in-question, but since I've clashed many times before with that group's ownership of that article, I'll be mostly staying away from there. Good luck. GoodDay ( talk) 15:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I made the edits to the Prince Harry article in good faith. However, I appreciate your fix, as it taught me new policies on Wikipedia of which I wasn't aware. However, as I explained in my act of undoing your undo, the new edit that I made violates neither policy you cited, as there is no possibility of there being a different article titled "Queen Elizabeth II," and even if there were, then the redirect would kick in. However, as I also stated, in the WP:NOPIPE article, it says that "President George Washington" is preferable to " President George Washington," hence why I made my edit that way. This new edit violates no policies, as far as I can tell, but it makes no sense to have "Queen" within the link and not outside of it, as it presents no clarity issues, and does not interfere with any future links which may need to be made with "Queen Elizabeth II."
I wanted to make it clear that I did not undo your edit to be belligerent or because I was upset. However, my main concern with fixing redirects like that (although I will be very judicious in the future about it, thanks to what you've taught me) is that, on mobile, in my experience, one cannot edit pages they've been taken to from redirect links.
I should have spoken to you before making the undo, and I apologize for that. I just want to make Wikipedia a better place. I hope this explains my actions better.
Thank you, and all the best in the future,
Packer1028 (
talk) 00:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I saw that you reverted my move to Marie-Adélaïde, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg. There is a disambiguation page that exists at this topic at Princess Marie-Adélaïde. Do you think the disambiguation page would be best moved to just Marie-Adelaide? There are almost no redirects to the disambiguation page. Let me know. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to tell me if you consider the other sources in those two articles are reliable or unreliable.
Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 18:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Surtsicna, may I ask you to post a brief opinion on this talk page regarding the moving of the article William IV of the United Kingdom to a simpler William IV? Gratefully yours, M. Armando ( talk) 01:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Have you seen IP188.238.102.151 adding infoboxes to a multitude of articles? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your edits, but please do not insert what has been deleted per wp rules such as the deletion of the "name" parameter. The other point is that ancestry info on the page Moudi bint Khalid is fully sourced. So please instead of deleting smth and claiming that it is unsourced read the related articles first. -- Egeymi ( talk) 13:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Listen if you have a problem with my editing, just say so, all UK Peers should have the correct links, please stop trolling my edits on them, they need to be correct. Mr Hall of England ( talk) 17:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
There are problems in the world and your bothered about this, I have a learning disability leave me alone.
Hello, I noticed your edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Archduchess_Marie_Astrid_of_Austria&diff=967016863&oldid=966608570
Unless the subject is a child actor, it's silly to have the photograph of a 10-year-old in the lead of the biography of a 66-year-old.
I believe nothing was wrong with that. Were you removing the image per Manual of Style or WP:GNG? CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 05:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Princess Eudocia. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 23#Princess Eudocia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
GPinkerton (
talk) 07:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Surtsicna reported by User:93.138.26.51 (Result: ). This is a report of edit warring at Vukovar. It seems that both you and the IP may have broken the 3RR. There may be time for you to respond and promise to wait for consensus before reverting again. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 22:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Surtsicna, what to you mean with your remark Again, please don't and why should this link be incorrect in your opinion? Thank you for your time. Lotje ( talk) 06:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I assume you're able to speak Serbo-Croatian to some degree, and I would like to ask for your help at Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje to either confirm or reject my misuse of the sources that were written in SC language. There's a dispute between me and one other user who insists I misused some or all of the sources in Serbo-Croatian. If you have available time at your disposal, of course. Cheers! -- Governor Sheng ( talk) 18:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi! You were there on the subject. Kindly review the recently made changes. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV ( talk) 05:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Greetings dear...you have a very good understanding of Wiki policies and have also voted at Afd's for many Royalty related articles. I would appreciate if you could provide your opinion on this discussion. Best regards 185.205.141.123 ( talk) 05:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't mean to reverse your edits. Will she be designated as Dr. Biden or the First Lady?
cookie monster (2020)
755 18:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't fixing them because they were inherently broken, but I see no reason not to pipe them. (Admittedly, part of my reasoning is that redirects prevent one's ability to edit on mobile, where I do a lot of my editing work.) If it were for something that might get spun off or have its article title changed, I could understand the prohibition on piping completely. However, I don't see the justification here. Could you, at your convenience, explain? Thank you for your help. Packer1028 ( talk) 13:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I offer a truce, but I would like you to this for me please: According to the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 Hereditary Peers, Law Peers (not many left) and Life Peers can retire from the Lords (in my view they should retire at 80, I digress).
I think some are missing from the list, I may be wrong though, but also I think the Life Peers should have this style about the table:
Date of creation | Name | Title | Territorial qualification | Date of retirement (if applicable) |
Date of extinction (if applicable) |
---|
Hope this is an olive branch.
Stay Safe
Daniel Hall
Mr Hall of England ( talk) 20:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
About this: When the person who adds the RFC tag isn't the author of the question, then signing the 'wrong' (non-author's) name to the question can be confusing and is not really the best practice. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
"Lead images should be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." I do not think a reader would expect to see a woman notable for her role in adulthood depicted as a child, and certainly no high-quality reference work would depict her as such.
For example if the person is notable in both childhood and adulthood, what image should be used? CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 17:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Is Pope Eugene II a saint? So far I have found nothing to confirm this. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Could you stop reverse my edits without any reasons, only to annoy me? If you could read, you would see, that every person has a father and a mother (in the template "Infobox royalty"). It's also not hard to look on Geni. Your reverts have no relevance for Wikipedia and there are people who would like to know more about the origins of rulers Phillipm0703 ( talk) 19:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I would ask that you refrain from removing material that is referenced by older sources. To remove them is WP:RECENTISM. I realize that is an explanatory supplement, but even if you are systematically removing {{ ahnentafel}} templates without references, it is no reason to remove ones that have reliable sources that happen to be old. To do so would discount authors like John Adams, Leonardo Bruni, & Jean Froissart. Peaceray ( talk) 17:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
A valuable source, it contains in its notes exact references to many original documents.
What makes these volumes different from genealogical books that went before, and other genealogical histories for other noble families printed about the same time, was a renewed passion for preuves, roughly translated as ‘proof’, that is, primary source material emerging from ancient manuscripts often kept in monasteries, that could verify ancient family traditions and stories. This trend is sometimes known as the antiquarian movement, and spread throughout many works in the 17th century.As the the article does note
That didn’t mean of course that they are to be treated as infallible records of accurate truth.&
These massive nine volumes ... were even corrected, reprinted, and augmented with a tenth volume in the 19th century.So, unless you already have peer-reviewed sources, I would submit that this is next best thing. If you have problems with the 17th century version, then seek out the 19th century editions.
Surely we can do better than an 18th-century genealogy book.Since you are "not talking about reliability", WP:RS must not be an issue for that particular source. Peaceray ( talk) 20:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey noticed this is a pattern for you, please check the source of text before you revert! You mentioned one of my contributions in Ferdinand was "dubious." This is the fact that his grandmother was the Jewess of Toledo, a very interesting and relevant historic fact.
Hi, do not add these. What is the probleme with those? Thank you for your time. Lotje ( talk) 13:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Surtsicna, noticing your revert, is this better? Matilda of Flanders (Q391944) Personally, I would have added this one because it is in the église Saint-Étienne (Caen). Thank you for your time. Lotje ( talk) 15:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Natalis soli invicto! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
1. Why do You remove the maps? They're all correct. 2. Those images of Mieszko and Bolesław are not "fanciful images", but widely known and often used paintings (drawings) by the most important Polish historic paintner Jan Matejko. These images are even on the covers of academic books eg. written by prof. Jerzy Strzelczyk (Mieszko Pierwszy) or Przemysław Urbańczyk (Mieszko I Tajemniczy). Popik ( talk) 22:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
The consensus was not to add the title of first lady of the United States (Jill Biden) or second gentleman of the United States (Doug Emhoff) until January 20, 2021 at 17:00 UTC. Thank you for opening it, Surtsicna
cookie monster (2020)
755 04:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I put the Kingdom of Croatia to clarify what Croatia is being talked about. As it wasn’t a separate Country in any article in which a figure born in the Kingdom of Croatia is dubbed “Austro-Hubgarian” not Croatian. It’s always been confusing with national status. And used to de-Croatify individuals when convenient. Also I assume it is Dajilas who is citing him as the “Father of racism”? Seems strange to out of context says he was cited as but not credit who cited him. I think the source is saying Dajilas is saying so? If you could take a look I'd appreciate the extra set of eyes. The “by who” w was removed and never addressed in the edit by the other editor. So made the fix. Thanks and stay well. OyMosby ( talk) 06:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Is www.tudorplace.com.ar a reliable source?-- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Pope Linus; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 ( talk) 14:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Boris Johnson. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please do not edit war Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)