User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

DYK for Saša Broz

On 25 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Saša Broz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Croatian theater director Saša Broz trademarked the name and signatures of her grandfather, Yugoslav president Josip Broz Tito? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Saša Broz. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Saša Broz), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chequers Ring

Hello! Your submission of Chequers Ring 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! Kosack (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Chequers Ring

Hi, per discussion at WT:DYK#Did you know nominations/Chequers Ring, your hook has been moved out of the image slot. There is a question as to the image licensing, which must be taken care of before this goes to the main page. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Edith A. Roberts

On 5 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Edith A. Roberts, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 98 years ago, biologist Edith Roberts founded the first ecological laboratory in the US, inspiring landscape architect Elsa Rehmann to use native plant communities in garden design? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edith A. Roberts. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Edith A. Roberts), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Elsa Rehmann

On 5 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elsa Rehmann, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 98 years ago, biologist Edith Roberts founded the first ecological laboratory in the US, inspiring landscape architect Elsa Rehmann to use native plant communities in garden design? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Elsa Rehmann), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Childish

Stop being childish when I clean my articles, if you did that to none Royal Peerages you will have a field day.Mr Hall of England (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder: there is no such thing as your articles on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough but you are very childish about redirects though, if you did this to other Peerages with this redirect nonsense it will take months.Mr Hall of England (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I am not childish. Please read the guidelines I directed you to. If you have a problem with those guidelines, say so on the talk pages of the guidelines. Surtsicna (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Chequers Ring

On 8 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chequers Ring, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a secret compartment of Queen Elizabeth I's Chequers Ring contains miniature portraits of the Queen and an unknown woman? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chequers Ring. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Chequers Ring), 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.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Chequers Ring images

Realisticaly the images are copyvios given the uploader's history, the professional quality and the lack of metadata.©Geni (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be the general consensus now. What I am still not clear about, ©Geni, is whether having a photograph of the miniature portraits alone would be copyvio or not. Do they count as "photographic reproduction of old paintings"? Surtsicna (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Just thanks

Your prompt revert this morning on Francis II of France was appreciated, as is your dedication to staying on top of the endless war against vandalism. Just trying to give an extra word of thanks to those editors who are especially active in this effort. Cheers. History Lunatic (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)History Lunatic

Thank you for noticing! It was a nice try by the IP, though. I had to take a quick glance at fr.wikipedia's article to confirm that I had not missed that part of French history. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Language

Hi, Iam mainly sport user and I dont want discuss about politics, but why you changing in players articles language to Serbo-Croatian? when in the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovovina official languages are only Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian? That language is similar I know, but not in official use. Windhunter (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Windhunter! It is identical, not similar. I see no reason to use one of the three standard varieties since we have no indication which of the three the subject prefers. Serbo-Croatian is thus neutral ground. Surtsicna (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Married women

I see you have been making a lot of edits removing married women from their husbands families (dynasties, "Houses" etc). Do you have references for your assertion that elite married women were or are not regarded as having become part of their husband's families? It seems odd to me, and to run against the historical evidence. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

What historical evidence? I am honestly not aware of any historian describing Mary Tudor as a Habsburg, referring to her as Mary of Habsburg, or counting her among the myriad of Habsburgs. I am surprised that you ask me to disprove something that has not been proven in the first place. Isn't the burden of proof "on those seeking to include disputed content"? Surtsicna (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You are the one removing categories that have been there for years. That a married woman is normally considered part of her husband's family in all major cultures is WP:SKYISBLUE. Must I do a RFC? Please stop these edits. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually support Surtsicna here - there is no evidence or sourcing that the women were considered members of their husband's dynasties. If it's unsourced, it can be removed. If sources can be shown that some historians consider married women members of their husband's dynasties - then we can restore the categories. Unfortunately, I've never seen such a source. Surtsicna's removals of the categories is challenging the information ... to restore it we should see sources that directly support it. In the case of Empress Matilda, the one source that was added directly contradicted the idea that Matilda was considered a member of the Salian dynasty (we'll leave aside that it's not a great source to use for an FA). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Princess Maria Theresa of Braganza

Hello Surtsicna,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Princess Maria Theresa of Braganza for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Infanta Maria Theresa of Portugal.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Xevus11 (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Štefica Galić

On 15 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Štefica Galić, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ethnic Croat journalist Štefica Galić has been called the "Schindler of Ljubuški" for helping save an estimated two-thirds of the town's Bosniaks during the Croat–Bosniak War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Štefica Galić. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Štefica Galić), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

List of longest-living members of the British royal family

Hi Surtsicna! I wanted to reach out to you as a subject matter expert to receive your guidance and feedback regarding a draft list I am working on, presently titled User:West Virginian/List of longest-living members of the British royal family. As you will see, I am still working on adding inline citations for each of the tables' data points. I plan to move this list into the main space once it is complete, but I wanted to make sure that the lede was as strong as possible. The longevity of British royal family members is notable, as is the lengthy lifespans of its oldest members, and I wanted to ensure that this was well established and cited in the lede. Again, any guidance you could provide would be extremely appreciated! Because this will be moved to the main space, please feel free to make edits as you see fit! Thanks again! — West Virginian (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Surtsicna! I've moved List of longest-living members of the British royal family to the mainspace. Please take a look and let me know if you have any suggestions for me to address or incorporate in the meantime. As always, I appreciate your feedback and guidance! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Aleksa Šantić

Dear sir or madam, Šantić was and is a Serbian poet. AŠ wrote in Serbian and was a Serb. He was also pro-Yugoslav, but this does not make him less of a Serbian poet and part of our literature.

Please stop making this an edit war.

Best regards,

Mm.srb (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Mm.srb, Šantić was a Serb. He never lived in Serbia, however. He wrote in Serbian as well as Croatian because, guess what, it's all the same language. Šantić's ethnicity is given in the article. In fact, it is given in the second sentence. Per MOS:BIO, ethnicity should not be in the first sentence, i.e. modern people should not be defined by their ethnicity but by their country. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

1) I do not see a point in the fact that he never lived in Serbia. That can also be said for Nikola Tesla and he is still a Serbian American and Jovan Dučić is also Serbian in the same way. 2) I saw that it is mentioned in the second sentence. 3) That's all very good, but if that is a valid point (and it could be discuseed further) than you should change intro parts of thousands and thounds of Wikipedia articles. 4) Šantić wrote in Serbian, not Croatian. That is misleading and incorrect. For example, Tin Ujević wrote in both Crotian and Serbian, AŠ did not. That is a relativisation of the matter and personal opinions are irrelevent in the regard that AŠ was and is a part of Serbian literature. 5) Ivan Meštrović was a Yugoslav scluptor and I do not see that part in the article on him. I will edit the article and, for the sake of taking in hand your input, write that he was Serbian and Yugoslav (and so on). Mm.srb (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

1) The point is that, per MOS:BIO, modern people should be defined by their country, not ethnicity. In Šantić's case, that country was not Serbia, even though he was indisputably a Serb. On the other hand, a politician who is not a Serb but lives and works in Serbia is a Serbian politician (e.g. Rasim Ljajić). 3) Wikipedia is a work in progress. There are thousands and thousands of Wikipedia articles that need changing, and this is not very high on the list of priorities. 4) Serbian and Croatian are the same language. Whoever speaks or writes Croatian also speaks or writes Serbian and vice versa. Oh, let's not forget Bosnian and Montenegrin. 5) Defining Meštrović as a Yugoslav sculptor would be perfectly accurate. Surtsicna (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten

Is there any particular reason why you felt it necessary to revert my edits? MattSucci (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

You removed sourced information without an explanation. Surtsicna (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

First, Prince Amedeo of Aosta, who is linked, was already dead when the wedding took place.

Secondly, having read the absentees piece a second time, I admit that that edit was wrong.MattSucci (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hi how are you doing at the moment?

Could you clear the air for this question?

Should Prince Harry and Meghan have children will the be style X Mountbatten-Windsor Earl of Dumbarton or Lord/Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor or will the letters patent be (could happen) extended from Children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales to Children of the sons of any Prince of Wales where they are styled HRH Prince/Princess X of Sussex.

Also Prince Edward's children are styled as children of an Earl rather than HRH as they are legally HRH but that is another debate. Would if James has children would they just plain X Mountbatten-Windsor or Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor?

I hope I haven't made it complicated for you but it is speculation.

Yours faithfully

Mr Hall of England (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Mr Hall of England! Yes, I expect the children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to be styled as the children of a duke. James's future children are entitled to be styled as children of a duke but it is just as likely that they will be treated as children of a viscount unless Edward is granted a dukedom. Surtsicna (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have heard a rumor the Edward would inherit the Duke of Edinburgh when it is merged in to the crown but in 1999 he was nearly created Duke of Cambridge which would of been ideal as he went to Cambridge.Mr Hall of England (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Undid revision 863253976 by Surtsicna (talk) It is not nonsense, they are two separate languages.

Dear Surtsicna,

I am writing on your talk page to address the edit warring that is happening. I am not making the nationalist claims of which you speak, I am simply pointing out the fact that there are a few fundamental differences between Croatian and Serbian, because they are two separate languages and cultures. One of the core differences includes the use of "ekavica" in Serbian, as opposed to "ijeakvica", and "ikavica" in Croatian, and also "ekavica" in some parts of Croatia and BiH. I am asking you kindly to please stop reverting my separation of the two languages before I take it to the next level of administration. These are not nationalist claims, they are simply showing the fact that Croatian and Serbian are two different languages.

Nikster56 (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, I am trying to avoid edit warring however you are not responding to the talks I leave you. While the words are the same in both languages, albeit in different scripts, Serbo-Croatian is not an official language. Croatian and Serbian are. Please leave the edit as I am simply changing it so that it is in two official languages.

Nikster56 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Nikster56, separate cultures does not translate to separate languages. Neither does the existence of ekavica, ijekavica and ikavica. If Serbian is distinct from Croatian due to ekavica, then the language of Dalmatia is distinct from the rest of Croatia due to ikavica. Besides, ijekavica is used in Serbian as well. The claim that Serbs and Croats speak different languages, despite understanding each other better than Americans understand British people and vice versa, originated during the Yugoslav Wars and is indeed rooted in nationalism. If you intend to continue edit-warring, please do bring this issue to administration. Otherwise I will have to. Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Surtsicna, Serbo-Croatian as a language actually originated in Yugoslavia, not the separation of the two. There is a difference between the two, and just because one who speaks one can understand the other can understand the other, does not mean that the two are the same language. I will gladly take this issue to administration so that we can resolve it. Nikster56 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Nikster56, the name Serbo-Croatian was first used in 1824 by the German linguist Jacob Grimm (better known for his fairy tales). The name thus predated Yugoslavia by almost a whole century. There is a greater difference between the language spoken in Zagreb and the language spoken on a Dalmatian island than between the language of Zagreb and the language of Belgrade. And yes, of course two people who understand each other perfectly speak the same language. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Surtsicna (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Surtsicna (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block is unwarranted; I did not even break the three-revert rule. When I realized that I had made three reverts, I stopped and appealed to the noticeboard. I obviously had no intention to engage the user further without administrator assistance. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not entitled to three reverts; while 3RR is a bright line violation, you can still be determined to be edit warring with fewer reverts. You should have entered into discussion or other dispute resolution(not necessarily admin assistance) before then. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

331dot, I did start a discussion. That's the most basic thing. I started a thread on the talk page. It was ignored. I wrote on the new user's talk page to invite him or her to take part in the talk page discussion. That too was ignored. I do not quite get how attempting to discuss and simply reverting are judged the same. Oh, well. Surtsicna (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Styling of Princess Eugenie

Hi how are you doing, should Princess Eugenie be styled HRH The Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank or is there no procedure for the style?Mr Hall of England (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirects

I just want to emphasize that I do not hunt for redirects to replace them by pipes, but that I was triggered by YOU explicitly INTRODUCING redirects, which I found strange and reverted to the longer standing version, therefore. BTW, I strictly want to stay free of all things Balkan, even when I privately support the statement of Serbian and Croatian language being sufficiently similar to call them the same in every day life. I will not bother any further. Purgy (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Purgy. There is no need to be triggered. WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE explain why redirects are preferable. I do not understand the relevance of the latter part of your message. Surtsicna (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Recently you've been pruning down the genealogical tables of various people. This doesn't seem terribly helpful to me. WP:BLP sourcing guidelines are important, but I don't think this is sufficient justification for removing material because someone failed to adequately cite it. While there might be an interesting more general discussion to have about how to improve these articles, I urge you to have that discussion somewhere, and not simply persist in this edit war; it seems unlikely to result in a higher quality article.Flyte35 (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think these removals improve wikipedia by restricting these uncited, over-detailed sections to more relevant relations. Articles shouldn't stray into unnecessary trivia, and wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a genealogical repository. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Flyte35, WP:BLP is very clear about this. "Any material challenged ... must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The names of these people have been challenged. That is sufficient for removal. We have had dozens of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Many have involved biographies, specifically royalty. Can you honestly say that you are certain none of those non-notable people were invented by a mischievous anonymous user? Or that none of them are names of actual but unrelated people, perhaps criminals or others with whom the subjects might not wish to be associated? Even if everything were okay, those names add no value. They are just random words. Saying that a princess is the great-granddaughter of a seamstress would have some meaning; saying that one of her great-grandparents was a Maria Waldau is completely worthless. Surtsicna (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Realistically some people are just really into this stuff, and often aren't good about citing. I believe the way to fix is to have a more general discussion to have about how to improve these articles. It's obviously way easier to find citations for well known royals than for the more obscure ones you've been playing with (along with Celia Homeford) but come on. I believe the most productive strategy is to fix the citation problem.

I just urge you to try to be helpful here. You've been editing this article for more than 5 years, for instance. It appears the the ancestry information here was added by Sheila1988 on 28 June 2018‎. Maybe contact her? Honestly if your concern is a lack of sourcing I understand, but other people are just going to add this stuff again. Flyte35 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, there isn't much to discuss: the way to improve them is to find sources. If you can fix the citation problem, please do. Then we may discuss the relevancy issue. Yes, people do regularly add unsourced information into articles about living people. We should not have weeks or months of discussion about whether the unsourced addition is bullshit. What we should do, per policy as well as common sense, is remove that information and keep it out until sources are presented. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean, you said before that it was perhaps worth having a more general discussion. If you believe this sort of thing is a problem that's worth addressing, it's probably more useful to have a discussion about this than just deleting stuff at random because you can't find souring for it. Someone's just going to add it again. You've been editing these articles for years; you know that. If you're not interested in putting in the work for a more general discussion (totally understandable, btw), maybe just include a citation tag. Flyte35 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Prince George of Cambridge

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Naue7 (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Surtsicna. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Hello there.

Thanks for your feedback. Well, we often address the Duchess of Cambridge by her first name on her page, so why is it a problem for the Duchess of Sussex?

Markle was an actor and independently notable long before she met Harry. Different topics, different approach. Surtsicna (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

C.A.

Actually, I added a source to support that statement. It was in Beller p. 86: "Charles Albert was elected and crowned HRE (...), the only non-Habsburg to enjoy the office during the period from 1440 to the Empire's end in 1806." Francis I had a connection to the Habsburgs through his grandma, Elanor of Austria. But if you think that such statement might be controversial, then it might be better to just remove it as you have done. Thank you. Mimihitam (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, Mimihitam, I did not see the new source. The thing is, virtually every ruler in that age had a connection to the Habsburgs. Charles Albert had one too; he was the son-in-law of Joseph I and great-great-grandson of Ferdinand II. What we can safe say is that Charles Albert was the first non-Habsburg emperor since 1440. Surtsicna (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will put that sentence back into the paragraph if you don't mind. My only purpose was to show how grave the situation was for her. Mimihitam (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Dawson Beales

I've just noticed something. The page Maria Theresa has two references named "Dawson Beales":

• Dawson Beales, Derek Edward: Joseph II: In the shadow of Maria Theresa, 1741–1780 Cambridge University Press 1987 ISBN 0-521-24240-1
• Dawson Beales, Derek Edward: Enlightenment and reform in 18th-century Europe I.B.Tauris 2005 ISBN 1-86064-950-5

The citations in the text have no year in it, so could you clarify if the citations are referring to the 2005 or the 1987 book? Mimihitam (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice catch, Mimihitam. This has not gone unnoticed for a decade, and has been overseen by Good Article, peer review and Featured Article reviewers. I cannot access the 2005 book anymore, so I guess the way to go is to check the 1987 one first. Surtsicna (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I will try to check them one by one. I'm now trying to recheck the pages and transform the style into sfn. References that have been transformed into sfn have been reverified. I would appreciate it if you could tell me whether you still have access to some of the books that I can't find online, such as Allison Levy and Browning. Thank you in advance! Mimihitam (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you should change those citations because he is just known as Derek Beales professionally, not Dawson Beales. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Mimihitam, Here you can see Levy, but Browning does not seem to be available for preview anymore, at least not from where I am. You, however, might be able to find it on Google Books. A lot of content is blocked in Germany, where I currently am. Surtsicna (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford I've fixed that in the list of references, but I still need access to the books to be able to check which book was actually cited in the article.

@Surtsicna Thank you, but the pages are missing, so I can't check the citations directly.... Mimihitam (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Mimihitam, do you mean missing from the preview? Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The google book scan has no pages in it, so I can't really figure out which one is page 112 and 118. Mimihitam (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, Mimihitam, you are right. I cannot remember exactly since I wrote it 10 years ago, but there must have been another scan available. The same goes for Browning, which I cannot access anymore at all. But this Levy book is not the kind of source we should strive for anyway. Ideally we should have modern biographies or at least books specializing in the late Habsburg history. Browning is one of those, though. Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

For sure, I'm also trying to find other sources to replace Levy, Saperstein and Lever, but it's not that easy since that means I also have to change the substance a bit, like what I have done before while adding new sources/replacing sources. If you can find one, feel free to replace them. For now, I have tidied up most of the bibliographies. Those that have not been converted into sfn are those that have not been rechecked yet. Hopefully someone in Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request can find Beales (1987) for me, because in the library in my area, someone borrowed it until the end of January (lol). Mimihitam (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Information

Since you were the original writer, I would like to inform you that I have finished revamping Maria Theresa. I've also checked all the citations and added new ones. I hope that the changes that I have made are acceptable. Kind regards. Mimihitam (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

What you did is impressive! Thank you. I am glad someone else has also devoted time to that article. Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

What's your problem?

The sources you looked after was referred to, what's your problem now? What's your motive now for undoing the edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipjako (talk • contribs) 22:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

You can't source a wikimedia project and you must follow WP:CITE (I'm not the owner of this talk page). IWI (chat) 22:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Rosa Parks

Hello! I am not absolutely positive, but I think that section speaks to deceased people who laid in state at the US Capitol Rotunda. As in "Preceded by Ronald Reagan and followed by Gerald R Ford" I am not positive however. You may want to check into this further. Thanks! Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it is. I just think it's a very weird thing to have in a succession box. Succession boxes are for offices and titles. Surtsicna (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

If Ms. Parks was lying in state at The Rotunda, it's an exceptionally notable event. Not many civilians are accorded that honor. I can see where it is a "thing" that adds to the knowledge base. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, but it's not something that's normally thought of as a succession, a line, a list, an office, a title, etc. Not every notable thing belongs to succession boxes. That one in particular was bizarre; the image I got was corpses replacing each other in a succession. Surtsicna (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yikes! Well, I'm not tied to anything that another editor might chose to add or subtract from articles as long as it's not misinformation, or (on this particular article especially,) racist and bigoted commentary. Philosophically I am an inclusionist, and would rather see more than less in most WP articles. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

William III of England - mother's titles

Hi, regarding "(Unnecessarily detailed. The article is about William, not his mother, therefore her titles are irrelevant.)" - do you mean the entire article shouldn't mention his mother's titles or just the introduction? I'm just trying to add some context to explain a few things for readers not terribly familiar with the topic and would like to put these into subsections if they are not important enough for the lead.

Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Facts707! I think describing Mary as the daughter of Charles I of England is enough. I am not sure she can even be described as "Princess of England", as that title was not used at the time. She may have been an exception as the first Princess Royal, but in any case, the article about her son should not delve into those intricacies. Surtsicna (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. In the Birth and family section it mentions mom as Mary, Princess Royal with a link to her article Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange. Could we at least have her full article name there (Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange) so readers can discern that she was Princess of Orange as well as Princess Royal (of England)?

Also I'm not too sure about having just the given name Mary appear twice (once for mom and once for wife) in the lead. When the lead goes on to say "William and Mary reigned together" are all readers to naturally infer the lead is talking about wife and not mom? It would take prior knowledge or a close reading of later sections to discern the difference. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the standard is to introduce the parents by the highest title they held in their own right. See, for example, how the mother of James II and Charles II of England is introduced in their biographies. I agree with your second point, though. It should be made clear that the Mary with whom William reigned was his wife and not his mother. That is easy to sort out, however. Surtsicna (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Take part in a survey

Hi Surtsicna

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy tors --Avi gan (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

5th generation

Almost all the royal persons had their ancestors' ahnentafel up to 5 generations. Except few, like George V of Hanover, which they had 4 generations only. I add the 5th one, but you reverted it. Why? I thought all the ancestors' ahnentafel would be nice to have the same number of generations. The 5th is very helpful (in my work at least) and I am wondering why should be deleted. What is the rule? The administrators here have no poblem to that. Aris de Methymna (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

But they do have a problem with it, apparently. There is no rule; each cases should be judged individually. In some cases 6 generations might be helpful, in others 3, and in some no ahnentafel is needed. --Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Piping links

It's one thing to change a link to a redirect to avoid it. That's to be avoided per WP:NOTBROKEN. With that said, the opposite, the removing of a "silly pipe" as you put it shouldn't be done either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Because, per WP:NOPIPE, there should be no unnecessary pipes. Of course, if we are to avoid doing something, as you say, we should also fix it when we see it done. WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE elaborate on why pipes are unhelpful. Surtsicna (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

NOPIPE is not what you're doing. The similar example would be to change [[Elizabeth II|Queen Elizabeth II]] to Queen [[Elizabeth II]] not pointing it to [[Queen Elizabeth II]]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

And if you were to do that, you would annoy a monarchist or two who watch the page and edit it against NOPIPE all the time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOPIPE is exactly what I am doing, Walter Görlitz. I am getting rid of pipes, which is what "no pipe" means. Redirects are perfectly fine. WP:NOTBROKEN says it very clearly. If I am missing a line where it says that links such as [[Queen Elizabeth II]] are problematic, please point it out to me. What I do not understand is why you are doing what is obviously and indisputably against these guidelines, i.e. reverting to [[Elizabeth II|Queen Elizabeth II]]. I also see no way how anyone would be annoyed by [[Queen Elizabeth II]]. Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

No you're not. Look at the examples more closely. They state do not do [[George Washington|President George Washington]] but rather do President [[George Washington]]. Notice how the link is to the term George Washington. So rather than bring that pipe into the link and make it longer, they state to take it outside. Feel free to ask at the project's talk page to determine who is correct.

All you must do is look at the edit history of that article to see the history around that link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOPIPE says that [[George Washington|President George Washington]] is bad practice. It does not say anything about [[President George Washington]]. Absolutely nothing. Yet what you are doing is reintroducing the practice that is unambiguously deprecated. It is incomprehensible. Surtsicna (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Walter Görlitz is correct. I would take their advice and discuss on the talk page. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but there is not much room for debating who is correct here. We can all read what the guidelines say. They say that [[Elizabeth II|Queen Elizabeth II]] is discouraged. They say nothing about [[Queen Elizabeth II]] being discouraged. Walter Görlitz is restoring [[Elizabeth II|Queen Elizabeth II]], which is indisputably wrong. He therefore cannot be correct. Surtsicna (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we can debate, but can we listen ? - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'll have to make do with reading. Surtsicna (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm pleased I'm actually correct for a change!

I agree that the way you made the most recent changes is correct per that guideline, but I'm not sure other editors will keep it that way for long. I will attempt to discuss on the article's talk page if that happens. Shall I include you? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please. Just give me a ping. Surtsicna (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Ealdgyth! I wish you a happy Saturnalia as well! :D Surtsicna (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Karin Vogel listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Karin Vogel. Since you had some involvement with the Karin Vogel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. <RetroCraft314 /> 20:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Popes

I'm not certain why you're determined to change the intros to the papal bio articles. But, are you planning these changes for all of them? or just the recent ones. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, I am determined to do it because sentences such as "Pope Francis is a pope" sound ridiculous and provide no context about the subject to the reader, in other words to improve the articles. I have changed the intros on many of them. Check out Pope Clement VI, for example. Please do not hinder me from improving individual articles. Do not keep some articles shitty just because others are shitty. Strive to improve them instead. Please. Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

If you're planning this for all the papal bio articles? then fine. PS: FWIW, I'm in favor of changing those articles titles from (example) Pope John Paul II to merely John Paul II. Afterall, we don't have President Donald Trump or Prime Minister Theresa May. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go along with these changes. Would be better if you use head of the Catholic Church, rather then leader of the Catholic Church. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

"Head" is fine with me. Your idea about moving those articles sounds reasonable. We even have Bartholomew I of Constantinople rather than Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I've tried in the past, to get agreement on 'page moving' these articles, at WP:CATHOLIC, but was defeated. If you bring the matter up there (for page movement), I'll support it. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Things are a bit complicated now that the title of the article about the current pope needs to follow the present format. Surtsicna (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

You do realize, you're potentially re-opening up a can of worms at the intro of Elizabeth II's article. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I've opened an Rfc on this matter at WP:ROY. If you want, you can tweak the Rfc question in what ever manner you please. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, can of worms is the result. But, the deed has been done. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Yes Macedonia unfortunately was conquered earlier by the Ottoman Empire, sorry for the inclusion. Archaeologist02 (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, Archaeologist02, and welcome to Wikipedia! Surtsicna (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Meghan, Duchess of Sussex you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DannyS712 -- DannyS712 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/GA1.
Message added 01:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DannyS712 (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Hello:

I've gone through this article again and it seems in fine shape for GA status. Good luck. Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Twofingered Typist! Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

The article Meghan, Duchess of Sussex you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DannyS712 -- DannyS712 (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

The Wikilink Queen Elizabeth II redirects to the page actually titled Elizabeth II, which I have historically understood to be an error- something underscored by the redirect notification which flashes at the bottom of the screen when this occurs. My apologies if avoiding redirects is no longer best practice. Snozzwanger (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I used to think that too since everybody was replacing redirects with pipes, but I've never seen any flashes. Surtsicna (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Nonetheless, that there is no “real” page titled Queen Elizabeth II and that the page about Monarch is actually titled Elizabeth II would I think be my point. Snozzwanger (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A dubious move

Just came across it, but six years ago you moved Amschel Mayor James Rothschild to "Amschel Rothschild", claiming "no need for full name". I expect anyone looking for "Amschel Rothschild" wants to see an article on Amschel Mayer Rothschild who was certainly a more significant factor in the dynasty.LE (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, LE! If Amschel Rothschild is not the primary meaning of "Amschel Rothschild", then the title of that article should be Amschel Rothschild (businessman) or something like that. A full name is a poor disambiguation. Surtsicna (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Both Amschel Rothschilds were bankers.LE (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Then Amschel Rothschild (British banker). Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

You'd really report me to Arbcom? just to win an argument over the intro at Elizabeth II's article? GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That argument is about one silly letter. What I am bothered by is your general behavior. For years you have been going out of your way to prevent others from improving Wikipedia because you are convinced that consistency trumps everything, from grammar to factual accuracy. GoodDay, I respect you as an long-time editor but this is a serious problem. Surtsicna (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I find your constant opposition to consistency in group articles, to be a problems. Funk & Wagnalls, World Encyclopedia always have consistency in their group articles. We should emulate that style. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take this 'style' dispute to Village Pump? Get a wider community opinion on the 'consistency' matter. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not opposed to consistency. I am opposed to errors, bad grammar and orthography, and senseless wording. You are preventing me and others from fixing such issues. If I am unable to make you see how detrimental that is to Wikipedia, I can only hope that an arbitration will. Surtsicna (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

So far, other editors at the Elizabeth II article, have called for the status quo of the intro, to remain. If I was the only opposition there, I couldn't prevent your changes. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No, they have not, and you know very well that that is not the issue I am prepared to take to Arbcom. Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Concerning papal bios, we did work out our differences there, which resulted in an improved intro for those articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

The article Meghan, Duchess of Sussex you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DannyS712 -- DannyS712 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

List of people from Serbia

I have missed the discussion about the list and so have several other editors from WikiProject Serbia, which seems foolish and a missed opportunity, as we would like to contribute. Three or four of you guys had a discussion, which seems rather a low number for a talk on such a long list.

I can't say that I agree with your thoughts on it. This list is the closest we have to a full List of Serbs on Wiki. It also seems unreasonable to focus only on People from Serbia, when there are millions of Serbs (half the total nation's population really) outside the country. We have done a lot of work on the page (List of people from Serbia) and I can not see merit in wasting all that work when instead we could simply rename or define the page in some other fashion.

Mm.srb (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Mm.srb. The discussion was open to everyone; nobody kept it a secret. I did not take part in it, but SMcCandlish made a very good case there. The point of renaming it was to redefine it and change the scope, thus avoiding a host of problems (such as WP:OR or WP:BLP issues) and nationalistic edit warring. The article contains heaps of people who not only have no connection to Serbia, but for whom there is no source proving Serb ethnic identity. That is very problematic. Why is Paul Stojanovich on that list? Because one of his great-grandparents was a Serb? Aria Giovanni? What proof is there that Gordana Tomić identifies as a Serb? With due respect to the work you have done there, that list is a mess. Surtsicna (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. "I didn't know about it and thus didn't get to have my say" never, ever casts any doubt on any consensus discussion on WP, or every single consensus discussion would be invalid.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)