Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Surtsicna. 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
German royal titles were all abolished in 1919. It is misleading and false to label hundreds of people "HRH" or "HH" or even more ridiculous, "HI&RH" on WP, they are no more entitled to such honorific prefixes than my cat. Saying "they are not false because they are used that way " doesn't cut it for me,such prefixes should not be used except when they have legal status as part of somebody's name, which has not been the case in Germany since 1919. I will not accept this, I will take this to as many dispute resolution boards and as high up as I need to. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
You are both at 3RR. The comma is clearly disputed. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I have asked the person I mentioned to have a look at the dispute I have been involved in yesterday and today, she said she would.I want to focus for right now on the issue of those navboxes labelled "Prussian royal family" etc with a list of HRH's and HI&RH etc. I don't expect her to follow all those pages, I thought I would briefly present my viewpoint on my talkpage and I wonder if you would be kind enough to present yours there. I want "the other side" to be presented by an advocate, not by me, and I would like you to state for her how you think I have been unreasonable, or out of line, or a total troll, or whatever, completely honestly. I don't expect you to be bound by what she says, but I commit myself to accepting her advice, if she says " you are out of line" I will drop it, if she says "you are making good points" I will continue. Will you do that? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The title "king of Croatia" was also just a part of the full titulature of the king of Hungary (like Dalmatia, Rama, Bulgaria, Serbia, Galicia, Lodomeria and Cumania), as there was no separate coronation. Is it necessarily important to indicate this title in the succession boxes in the case of Coloman's successors (from Stephen II)? --Norden1990 (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You can see what I wrote here .Smeat75 (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, you asked me twice about the children of monarchs being princesses, etc., but I didn't feel comfortable going into that on a third party's talk page, so thought I would reply here. You said "is there a law that says the King of Sweden's children are princes(ses) with the right to be styled as Royal Highnesses?" and then "I am still waiting to be told what law entitles the King of Sweden's (or the King of Norway's, or the Queen of Denmark's) children to be "legally" known as princes(ses) and Royal Highnesses. You will find that no such laws exist, so I wonder if you will push for renaming those people as well." You obviously know a very great deal about these matters, I am sure you really know that reigning Kings and Queens are allowed, as part of their "job", to create titles for members of their families, they sign a piece of paper and then their granddaughter or whoever is created HRH Sophia, Princess of Somewhere. There does not need to be a law passed to make that person a Prince or Princess, they are created one by "letters patent" (at least that is the term used in Britain, I am not sure about the term in these other monarchies, I would have to look it up.) But in the case of Germany, a law was passed in 1919 which specifically abolished all of those titles, and in other monarchies when they became republics also - Noble Privilege by M L Bush, Manchester University Press, 1983 "the abolition of titles coincided simply with the removal of the monarchy...The fall of the Habsburgs...and their replacement by republican governments...directly caused the elimination of noble titles in Germany".Smeat75 (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I see you are removing the statement that it was agreed between several users at MOS talk - "a compromise has been achieved on the main point at issue,which is that "These are traditional, rather than legal, styles and titles sometimes used by courtesy" is allowed to be inserted once into an appropriate place in relevant articles." As soon as FactStraight offered that I accepted it, you must have seen that but waited for the RfC to be closed before you gave any sign that you would not agree. Your objection to that clarification is that it is "redundant", it is redundant to you because you are an expert, this is not a specialized heraldry site or something, it is for presenting clear information to a general readership. I do not want to argue with you about royalty any more, the question is now why you are refusing to accept consensus, it wasn't just between me and FactStraight,user Hordaland for instance said "The statement, also quoted above, "With respect to these articles, it is reasonable to insert a disclaimer ..., as appropriate, that any titles and styles are traditional courtesies rather than legal...." (insert = mention within article text), would be fine as a guideline but not strict policy. I wouldn't worry about the navboxes (no disclaimer needed there)." That is what has been accepted, please don't force any more battles over this.Smeat75 (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI I have also left a message about this at user FactStraight's talk page .Smeat75 (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Instead of loading up the Elizabeth Woodville talk page with unrelated comments, I have a followup comment to your point about the uncertainty as to the coronation date of Louis I of Naples. The underlying source would not have used our modern calendar notation. Does the underlying source say: "vii. kal. jun." (26 May); "vi. kal. jun." (27 May); or "v. kal. jun." (28 May)? In the Middle Ages and even into the Renaissance, dates were expressed in classical Latin format, in which a date after the ides is expressed as so many days before the next calends. We frequently make mistakes in converting these dates, because Roman counting did not include a concept of zero, and the Romans did not count "from" a date but instead began counting "on" the date. Thus, 27 May is vi. kal. jun. (6 days before the calends of June) even though it is five days before the calends of June by our modern reckoning. We would normally count from 27 May by beginning with the next day (28 May) and keep going until June 1, but the Romans counted 27 May as the first day and kept going until 1 June. Similarly, Latin calendar terminology uses the term nones (Latin nonae, or ninth) for the eighth day before the ides. The classical Romans also had an eight-day week in which every eight day was referred to as the nundina (i.e., the "ninth" day). That sort of thing can produce errors in conversions of old dates to our modern notation, and it could simply be that "vi. kal. jun." was misread by one source as 26 May instead of 27 May. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC))
Catherine of Aragon's annulment was only recognised in England. In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church (and therefore most of Christendom), Catherine of Aragon remained married to Henry VIII until the day she died. Chchn (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Since you were one of the main participants in previous RfC's on the subject, perhaps you would be interested to know that I started here a thread whose aim is to throw ideas around about potential improvements on how we denote people with pretensions to royal and feudal titles. (Apologies for the title of this message! I can't help introducing a bit of levity to "serious" subjects.) -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
On 12 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Louis, Prince of Taranto, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that King Louis I of Naples had one cousin murdered so he could marry another, and was described by Petrarch as "violent and mendacious, prodigal and avaricious, debauched and cruel"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Louis, Prince of Taranto. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Greetings, --Norden1990 (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your last edit on Queen Silvia. In my opinion, it's clear that Estelle is Victoria and Daniel's child as she is mentioned within Victoria's section. The bullet point was also spaced out to show that she was a granddaughter of Silvia. Other articles have similar formatting. PrincessAlice13 (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
G'day, I noticed the FAC nomination of this article has not been completed. You will need to click on the "initiate this nomination" redlink on the talk page and follow the FAC nomination instructions, otherwise the nomination page will not initialise. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Surtsicna. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of John Allaire, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I would like to ask for your help, in connection with the origin of Władysław III of Poland (who also ruled Hungary between 1440 and 1444). Was he related to either predecessor Hungarian kings (Árpád dynasty, Anjou etc.)? Thanks in advance. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Béla IV of Hungary→Constance→Yuri I of Galicia→Anastasia→Uliana of Tver→Jogaila→Vladislaus I of Hungary Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Uliana of Tver→Alexandra of Lithuania→Euphemia of Masovia→Przemyslaus II, Duke of Cieszyn→John ZápolyaSurtsicna (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Surtsicna, congratulations on the upcoming Sark DYK; would you mind having a look at the portal I recently created? Thanks, Matty.007 16:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Created yesterday. I might review that DYK later (or one of them). Good luck with the article! Best, Matty.007 17:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to add a number of new images to some biographies, but I'm working at an old computer with a small screen so I can't always tell where they end up in a layout. Would you please help by informing me of problems on the talk pages, or by moving the images, rather than removing too many of them? I'd certainly appreciate that. Any way that we can save time is always good. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know who you are or who that user is. and you cant make a new account when youre blocked. i think the ip gets blocked or something --B1189199429080823K (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
On 13 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sibyl Hathaway, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that even Nazi occupiers bowed to Dame Sibyl Hathaway, the feudal ruler of the island of Sark, who was later described as a "benevolent dictator" and a "lady of unusual personality"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sibyl Hathaway. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 09:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
B1189199429080823K was blocked indef as a sock puppet. Give yourself a nice pat on the back. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 23:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've just reviewed Marie Collings for DYK - it's all but a pass, except that the length is a fraction short of 5x expansion. If you can add another 20 - 30 to it (strictly needs 13) I'll give it the green tick. --Bcp67 (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I did do a quick Google search on him before reverting, but all I saw were Wikipedia mirrors. If you found something in Google Books that indicates he got the award, can you add it as a reference? (I've unofficially been trying to keep unreferenced additions from cropping up in the Order of Isabella the Catholic article, because there were some totally false vanity entries in the article awhile back... and there is an invisible comment about "add a reference with your addition.") I'm still not sure this is a good idea, as it's a redlink and the list is not exhaustive - there are all sorts of minor figures who've received the award in the past ~40 years who don't have WP articles and probably shouldn't be mentioned, either, and a "no redlinks" policy helps make that clear. But maybe this fellow deserves an article anyway. SnowFire (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
On 17 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marie Collings, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Marie Collings, a wealthy pirate's daughter, purchased an island and became its hereditary ruler but never visited it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Collings. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if at some point you'd be interested in working on this article? I'd be happy to help. I could obtain a scan of an entry from Polski Slownik Biograficzny and incorporate this into the article within the next few months (probably could do it as soon as March). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing Fugging for DYK, however another editor for some unknown reason overrode you without giving a policy based reason at Template:Did you know nominations/Fugging. Could I ask if you could override him and put the green tick back please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Why you say that they're not treated as royals? Because they don't have the HRH style?Keivan.fTalk 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Can you make a cropped image of Empress Michiko from this file? I think a newer picture should be used in the article. Keivan.fTalk 19:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
...
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Please create disambiguation pages first, that way there won't be any impression that you're replacing redirects arbitrarily. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
On 24 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stephen Thomas of Bosnia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that King Stephen Thomas was forced to become the first ruler of Bosnia to engage in religious persecution? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Thomas of Bosnia. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
On 25 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tvrtko II of Bosnia, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tvrtko II of Bosnia. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Surtsicna, have you seen the BBC programme about Sark? While I'm here, how much work do you think the article needs for GA status? Thanks, Matty.007 21:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Surtsi,
Just interested on which country's royal articles do you work on mostly? Jaqeli (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Frederick Lukis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe Ian archived this because he was looking for some response from you to Hchc's comments (even though Hchc said "more to come"). If you put this back up at FAC in two weeks, I'll be happy to review the prose. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
On 10 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that King Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia (pictured) lost two realms and his head to Mehmed the Conqueror, much as he had predicted? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 14:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
On 13 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederick Lukis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that collections left by naturalists Frederick Lukis and his daughter Louisa, wife of Sark's feudal ruler William Thomas Collings, are the most significant natural history collections displayed by the museums of Guernsey? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frederick Lukis. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
On 13 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Louisa Collings, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that collections left by naturalists Frederick Lukis and his daughter Louisa, wife of Sark's feudal ruler William Thomas Collings, are the most significant natural history collections displayed by the museums of Guernsey? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
On 13 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Thomas Collings, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that collections left by naturalists Frederick Lukis and his daughter Louisa, wife of Sark's feudal ruler William Thomas Collings, are the most significant natural history collections displayed by the museums of Guernsey? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I note your revert of my reference to Queen Victoria and Prince Carl being step siblings. After reading the definition of step sibling in the link you provided, I agree that my referring to them as step-siblings was incorrect. However, it would be correct to refer to them as half siblings as while they shared the same mother, they did have different fathers. This then connects to the point I was trying to make in my comment on my edit that because Queen Victoria was the daughter of a son of George III, she was in line to the British throne, while Prince Carl had no direct connection despite being a half brother of Queen Victoria. So, would you be agreeable for me to change the current reference to their relationship being brother/sister (which implies that they were full siblings), to a reference that their relationship was as half siblings? --Chewings72 (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! How can I upload a better version of a file? For example there's a picture in Commons that I have a better version of it. But how can I do this? Keivan.fTalk 18:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, just curious if you were familiar with {{User:Vishwin60/Userbox/vandalized}}? I've had it on my userpage for several years now. Nyttend (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated her for GA, I haven't done any work on the article, but I think that the article is likely good enough to pass with not too much work. I just thought you may want a heads up. Thanks, Matty.007 19:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dinah Ashley-Cooper, Countess of Shaftesbury is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinah Ashley-Cooper, Countess of Shaftesbury until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I've seen that you are one of the main editors of the Violant of Hungary article and I just want to inform you that the article is featured at the the Catalan Culture Challenge, a Wikipedia editing contest in which victory will go to those who start and improve the greatest number of articles about 50 key figures of Catalan culture. It goes from March 16 to April 15. You can take part by creating or expanding articles on these people in your native language (or any other one you speak). It would be lovely to have you on board. :-) Amical Wikimedia --Kippelboy (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
As I explained in the edit summary, I removed the wikilink to "Harald V Land" because no such page exists, hence, the redlink. Moreover, it's unlikely that a standalone page on "Harald V Land" will ever exist, as it is not notable enough on its own. Cheers, JCO312 (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.