Jump to content

User talk:Aldebaran69/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Wrong image?

Hello! I just though you may be interested in this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Princess_Wilhelmine_of_Baden I noticed you added that image to the article again, but, looking at the fashion of the image, it is the fashion of the 1780s, which could not be the person of the article, who was born in 1788. When Wilhelmine was an adult, the fashion was enormously different than in that picture. Perhaps it was another Wilhelmine of Baden? Royalty often had the same names. Or perhaps the picture was simply given the wrong name? --Aciram (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, I only take the picture from the German wikipedia, sorry about that Aldebaran69 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louis IV of France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Péronne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Massive additions to Louis IV of France

Can you explain to me what the section "Deposition of Charles III the Simple" has to do with Louis IV? I have read that section and it makes no mention at all about Louis. Can you explain to me why this information should not be removed?

Also, can you explain why you have added paragraphs of information[1][2][3][4][5] with no sources? Why this information should not be removed as well? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Maria Vladimirovna of Russia.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Maria Vladimirovna of Russia.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ottoman history

Hi. Could you provide the sources you rely on for the changes you make on Ottoman biographical articles? This one seems especially dubious...--Phso2 (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source

I do not believe Roglo is considered a reliable source. However, if you do not agree, you can ask here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Princess Monika of Hanover.jpg

Can you link to somewhere on the source that explains why this Creative Commons? ThanksSfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte, Princess Royal

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Charlotte, Princess Royal has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Chantal Hochuli.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chantal Hochuli.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Princess Monika of Hanover.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Princess Monika of Hanover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Princess Ortrud of Hanover.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Princess Ortrud of Hanover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries, multiple consecutive edits

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Plus, it will be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the page history of the article less cluttered. Eric talk 04:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sophia of Prussia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Orthodox and Diadochos. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Princess Calixta of Lippe.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Princess Calixta of Lippe.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Princess Marie Adelheid of Lippe.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Princess Marie Adelheid of Lippe.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Specifically, this block is indefinite but not infinite. If you can convince us you understand what you've been doing wrong, you are welcome to request an unblock and any admin is welcome to lift the block without consulting me. --Yamla (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Aldebaran69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand the reason of my blocking and I requested the oportunity to correct myself. Please I humbly requested the unblocking. I never vandalized and I promise to check properly the copyright of any picture I uploaded. Only ask forgiveness

Accept reason:

You have stated you now understand the copyright issues. Just in case you don't, I'll point you to WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE. The block was not a punishment, it was simply to get your attention because copyright is a very serious concern for the Wikipedia. You have now been unblocked and are welcome to remove this message and the earlier messages indicating your block and the note I added. Have a good day, and thank you very much for caring enough to try to figure out these difficult policies. Yamla (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helen of Greece and Denmark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexandra of Yugoslavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Albania. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Citing unreliable source

I am concerned that you are adding unreliable sources to articles. I first came across one when you added

  • genealogy.euweb.cz
  • geneall.net

to James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick with this edit.

I presume that you added those sites to explain the comment I have added to the talk page talk:James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick

Did you really find that information on those pages? As you know I raised the issue of those two sites at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#genealogy.euweb.cz_and_geneall.net. What makes you think that either of those sites meet the Wikipedia criteria as described on the policy page WP:V, or the guideline page WP:RS?

Looking through you more recent edits I also spotted that you made an edit on the 1 August 2016 where you added information to the article Dorothea of Anhalt-Zerbst] that was supported by an citation to ww-person.com (11 August 2016).

I checked and ww-person.com is only found the following articles:

All of the citations to that website ww-person.com were added by you. I also noticed while compiling this list that you are using other websites of a similar quality. Please explain how you decide what is and is not a website that meets the requirements of WP:V.

Two editors who I noticed has edited one of the pages you did (Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau: Revision history) have an interest in similar pages User:DrKay(Editor Interaction Analyser) and user:FactStraight (Editor Interaction Analyser), they are experienced editors who I know in passing, so I am inviting them to add their thoughts.

-- PBS (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Charles V of France does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Once again: Provide edit summaries, and provide sources for your changes. Give a source for your change to the Charles V article. Your sloppiness makes a lot of work for responsible editors here. Eric talk 01:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries, multiple consecutive edits

Once again:

  • Please make a habit of providing an edit summary when you make a change to an article. Doing so makes it easier for your colleagues here to understand the intention of your edit.
  • Plus, it will be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the page history of the article less cluttered. Eric talk 11:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Concerning. Aldebaran69 edits and lack of editor interaction over those edits

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PBS (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I have replied to your posting on WP:ANI. I suggest that you reply there. --PBS (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
At the recent WP:ANI section now archived Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Concerning. Aldebaran69 edits and lack of editor interaction over those edits you agreed not to base edits on Wikipedia unreliable sources (as requested by Kansas Bear and my self) and to add appropriate comments to edit histories as requested by Eric .

It goes without saying that simply adding text to articles without citing a reliable source as you did here

Some of the unreliable sites that you have used in the past were raised at the ANI (by me):

By Kansas Bear with an edit to the article Sophie Elisabeth of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Wiesenburg (diff 9 October 2016)

This is not a definitive list of unreliable sources, if you are unsure if a source is reliable ask at WP:RSN and do not use it unless others tell you it is reliable.

Related to this are several other issues:

  • Adding content without citing a reliable source is not acceptable did here (diff 10 March 2016)
  • with this edit (diff 12 March 2016) you not only added content without citing a reliable source you also inserted text before a citation to a reliable source making it appear to a reader that the fact was supported by the reliable source. In such a situation you must add a reliable source to cover all the additional text including the facts added before a sentence covered by a reliable source:

Start of paragraph NEW TEXT...<ref>citation to a reliable sources</ref> Louis IV was crowned King by Artald, Archbishop of Rheims, on Sunday 19 June 936,<ref>Pierre Riche, ''The Carolingians'', Transl. Michael Idomir Allen, (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), 256.</ref>

In all Kansas Bear raised seven examples of this sort of behaviour on his posting to this talk page on 12 March 2016 (diff). Do not add text (other than trivial changes) without adding reliable sources to back up the changes.

The reason why adding text to articles without citations to reliable sources is discouraged is because back before such behaviour was encouraged about 10 years ago, the press had a field day finding Wikipedia articles that contained nonsense and other types of inaccuracies. Many articles were published in the news media often quoting university professors on how unreliable Wikipedia was. Since citing reliable sources for much of the text added to Wikipedia since then these types of criticisms have greatly diminished.

For example anyone can add information to a blog page or a genealogical page, most of such people are not either experts in genealogical studies or professional historians, and so we (Wikipedia editors) have no way of checking whether what they have on their sites is correct. Sometimes there are unreliable sources that cite reliable ones. One that I use occasionally is Darral Lundy's thepeerage.com but I do it through using WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. This is because while his site is not reliable, his sources may be. Here is an example: James Hamilton (English army officer).

Is all of this clear to you? If not then please ask some questions.

If you remove this posting without further comment then it is reasonable to assume that you will abide by that which you agreed in the recent ANI and that you do not object to anything I have written here.

-- PBS (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply placed on the talk page of PBS:

All the complains are prior to the last talk topic where I was mentioned; since them I avoided to uses genealogical sites to any article...if was imperative to delete all the references with genealogical sites, please be free to do it. Thanks for your concern. Aldebaran69 (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Uncited information added to Children of Palhavã

Looking at your edit history. The last substantial edit was to the article Children of Palhavã (diff) at 22:45, 18 October 2016.

In this edit you removed the text "his mother was an unknown French lady" and replaced it with "his mother was Luísa Inês Antónia Machado Monteiro"

  1. what was your reliable source for that change?
  2. Why did you not add that source to support the edit?

-- PBS (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I added the following comment here (diff) on the 23 October 2016:

Looking at your edit history. The last substantial edit was to the article Children of Palhavã (diff) at 22:45, 18 October 2016.

In this edit you removed the text "his mother was an unknown French lady" and replaced it with "his mother was Luísa Inês Antónia Machado Monteiro"
  1. what was your reliable source for that change?
  2. Why did you not add that source to support the edit?

The reply to my talk page was:

I added the information from the Portuguese and English wikipedia artices of King John V of Portugal (father of the Children of Palhavã). Aldebaran69 (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Aldebaran69: You should leave the post on your on talk page and answer it there. Eric talk 01:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not fully agree with Eric, you may leave you posts another's talk page, but you should not delete the others post from your page until the discussion is ended, because it makes it impossible for an interested third party to follow the conversation. If you were to start to hold a conversation Eric (as an interested party, to this conversation) over on his talk page, then trying to follow the conversation over three pages or more would be very confusing. So please do not delete this conversation until about a week has passed since the last comment in the exchange (whether you reply here or on my talk page).

You say: "I added the information from the Portuguese and English Wikipedia articles of King John V of Portugal" The Wikipedia article John V of Portugal in English or Portuguese is not a reliable source see WP:CIRCULAR. You may copy information from one Wikipedia source to another providing it is backed up with a reliable source, but in that case copy over the citation to a reliable source as well. Also see WP:PATT in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, if you copy text from one Wikipedia article to another say so in the edit history (by adding a link to the original article).

In this case it is not clear if the clause "John fathered at least four children from various extramarital affairs: António of Braganza, by Luísa Inês Antónia Machado Monteiro ..." is supported by the citaiton later in the paragraph, but Wikipedia:WikiBlame is a useful tool for searching the history of an article. In this case the search turns up Revision as of 23:46, 14 June 2014 by user:Cristiano Tomás. So the text may have a citaiton that covers it, but it is probably a good idea to ask Cristiano if it does, before extracting information from one Wikipedia article and adding it to another (Along with the citation to a reliable source). -- PBS (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't delete the posts, they are placed in the archive whom I created for year 2016...I made this with the purpose to kept my user talk page with too much information; to anybody who could follow the conversation it's just easy, entered in the 2016 archive and you can find the recent posts on the botton of the page; however, because you're soo worried about to follow this issue, I left this for one week, and after this I moved to the archive 2016. Aldebaran69 (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I found this pages who mentioned the maternity of the Children of Palhavã: [6][7][8][9][10] They are reliable or not? Aldebaran69 (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it better that taking into account WP:SOURCE and WP:RS that you tell me which of those sources you think is the most reliable and why. -- PBS (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think that the first [11] is the better one who could be considered a reliable source. Aldebaran69 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the website https://www.academia.edu/ and https://www.academia.edu/signup anyone can sign up! This makes it a blog site, because there is no editorial oversight. The only possible way that this could be considered a reliable source (see WP:SOURCE) is if the creator of the work is considered reliable. To be reliable the author would need to be verified and a well known expert (in this case a professional historian) of the Portuguese royal family, or that period in Portuguese history. How do you know that the person who published this is called Rita Esteves and that if you can know that that this Rita Esteves a recognised expert (see also WP:SCHOLARSHIP)? -- PBS (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, Ok I kept my search of sources. Aldebaran69 (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry I do not understand your last comment. Do you mean that you will look for a reliable source? Have you asked user:Cristiano Tomás who's information you copied if their source covers this fact? -- PBS (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Edits while continuing the discussion over edit to Children of Palhavã

See User talk:Aldebaran69/Archive 10#Concerning. Aldebaran69 edits and lack of editor interaction over those edits.

I questioned your addition to Children of Palhavã in the previous section where you added information without a source. I now see that while we are discussing this issue you are adding text to articles that do not seem to meet the standards and actions you explicitly agreed in the ANI conversation that we had (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Concerning. Aldebaran69 edits and lack of editor interaction over those edits}

@Aldebaran69 Creating article using such unreliable sources is damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. In future:

  1. will you only reliable sources to back up text that you use to create articles and add additional text to articles?
  2. If you are unsure if a source is reliable before you use it will you post to WP:RSN for conformation?

-- PBS (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@PBS Thanks for your kind suggestions. I try to followed in the future to avoid problems. Aldebaran69 (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@user:Aldebaran69 will you also add meaningful edit summaries as requested by user:Eric? -- PBS (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I wrote a summary to every edit made in the past few days to avoid problems. Thanks Aldebaran69 (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Will you continue to do so? -- PBS (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course, if was needed, and only to small edits...when I made translations I put on the article the under construction template.Aldebaran69 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. 22:53, 29 October 2016 (+5)‎ . . Duchess Sibylle of Saxe-Lauenburg ‎
  2. 22:31, 29 October 2016 (+144)‎ . . User talk:Aldebaran69 ‎
  3. 02:09, 29 October 2016 (+57)‎ (diff). . Ferdinand Charles, Archduke of Austria ‎
  4. 01:32, 29 October 2016 (+7)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  5. 01:06, 29 October 2016 (+548)‎ (diff) . . Maria Antonia of Austria ‎
  6. 00:56, 29 October 2016 (-136)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  7. 00:55, 29 October 2016 (-77)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  8. 00:54, 29 October 2016 (diff) . . (0)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  9. 00:53, 29 October 2016 (+2,236)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  10. 00:34, 29 October 2016 (+158)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  11. 00:30, 29 October 2016 (+60)‎ . . File:1671 Margarita.jpg ‎ (current)
  12. 00:29, 29 October 2016 (+1)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  13. 00:28, 29 October 2016 (+148)‎ . . N File:1671 Margarita.jpg ‎ (Empress Margarita Teresa and her daughter Maria Antonia Benjamin Block Hofburg Palace, Vienna)
  14. 00:28, 29 October 2016 (+39)‎ . . User:Aldebaran69/sandbox ‎ (current) [rollback: more than 10 edits]
  15. 00:26, 29 October 2016 (-1)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  16. 00:26, 29 October 2016 (+1,952)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  17. 23:30, 28 October 2016 (+1,087)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  18. 23:06, 28 October 2016 (+209)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  19. 22:54, 28 October 2016 (-46)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  20. 22:50, 28 October 2016 (+671)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  21. 22:45, 28 October 2016 (+260)‎ . . User talk:Aldebaran69 ‎
  22. 22:37, 28 October 2016 (0)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  23. 22:28, 28 October 2016 (+493)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  24. 22:25, 28 October 2016 (+3,532)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  25. 20:58, 28 October 2016 (0)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  26. 20:47, 28 October 2016 (+12)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  27. 02:24, 28 October 2016 (-2)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  28. 02:24, 28 October 2016 (+2)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  29. 02:23, 28 October 2016 (+6,287)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  30. 00:48, 28 October 2016 (+4,394)‎ . . Margaret Theresa of Spain ‎
  31. 22:05, 26 October 2016 (+46)‎ (diff. . Charles, Landgrave of Hesse-Wanfried ‎
  32. 22:00, 26 October 2016 (+55)‎ . . Charles, Landgrave of Hesse-Wanfried ‎
  33. 21:54, 26 October 2016 (-13)‎ . . George III, Landgrave of Hesse-Itter ‎ (current) [rollback: 4 edits]
  34. 21:54, 26 October 2016 (+207)‎ . . George III, Landgrave of Hesse-Itter ‎
  35. 21:48, 26 October 2016 (0)‎ . . George III, Landgrave of Hesse-Itter ‎
  36. 21:46, 26 October 2016 (+18)‎ . . George III, Landgrave of Hesse-Itter ‎
  37. 21:43, 26 October 2016 (+3)‎ (diff). . George II, Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt ‎
  38. 01:31, 26 October 2016 (-1)‎ . . User talk:Aldebaran69 ‎
  39. 01:30, 26 October 2016 (+632)‎ . . User talk:Aldebaran69 ‎
  40. 01:23, 26 October 2016 (0)‎ . . User talk:Aldebaran69 ‎
  41. 01:22, 26 October 2016 (+557)‎ . . User talk:Aldebaran69 ‎
  42. 22:33, 24 October 2016 (+227)‎ . . Infanta Maria Cristina of Spain (1833–1902) ‎

Not one of the edits you have made above has any text in the history to describe what it was that you were adding to the article (something you have explicitly agreed to do).

3. Change of fact no source for the change.
5. Addition of a Google book source -- Google books can be assumed to be reliable providing it is not self published. It is a good idea to use the Google book tool to converts bare url into {{cite book}} format.
30–6. covers edits to the article Margaret Theresa of Spain. You added several sources:
  • Lundy, Darryl (1 July 2003). Margaret Teresa Habsburg, Infanta de España page=10307 §03061. ThePeerage.Com. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |title= (help) cites Louda, Jirí; MacLagan, Michael (1999). Lines of Succession: Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe (2nd ed.). London, U.K.: Little, Brown and Company. table 80.
31–32 (diff) you added facts to an article without a citation to back them up.
33–36 (diff) you made a change that added a child without a citation to back it up.
37 you added a fact to an article without a citation to back it up.

What are you going to change and fix? -- PBS (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I translated from the Russian article of Empress Margaret Theresa who seems to be a good article according to Wikipedia standards. If you think that I'm doing a bad job or I'm not qualified to continue to do it, please be free to reverse the editions I made, or, in the case you don't wanted, I'm gladly do it. Aldebaran69 (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
And, about your complain 33–36 (diff) you made a change that added a child without a citation to back it up.: the article had a source who showed an stillborn daughter (royaltyguide); now I added geneall.net to further clarification. Thanks Aldebaran69 (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
And, about your complain 37 you added a fact to an article without a citation to back it up.: I only searched another page from the the page cited (cur | prev) 03:56, 15 November 2015‎ Iamthecheese44 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,466 bytes) (+431)‎ . . ((edited with ProveIt)) (undo | thank) and put the dates of birth and death. If you had a complain about that page [12], please do it to Iamthecheese44, not only me. Aldebaran69 (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
And, about your complain 31–32 (diff) you added facts to an article without a citation to back them up.: I added a German source to the article; this was my mistake I think I do it but I didn't watched carefully. Aldebaran69 (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

In a posting you your page user:Kansas Bear asked:

Geneall.net is not a reliable source. Therefore, nothing should be taken from an unreliable source and added to Wikipedia articles. AND, why do you think Die Durchläuchtige Welt, Oder: Kurtzgefaßte Genealogische published in 1739 is a reliable source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Kansas Bear http://Geneall.net is not a reliable sources and you ought to take any sources you are not sure about to WP:RSN as was agreed previously.

However I think that a book published in 1793 can be a reliable source. If however more recent scholarship can be found that contradicts it then the more recent scholarship ought to be used.

In both cases if you disagree with the opinions of another editor, then discuss it at WP:RSN in the hope of building a consensus over whether the source is or is not a Wikipedia reliable one. -- PBS (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

"Re: Harassment to my account"

I am not sure why you archived the discussion we were having on this page without waiting a least a week after to last posting the the section. You certainly did not leave long enough for me to consider my reply to your and post it.

You wrote to the talk page of user:Callanecc

"Hi Callanecc, I have a questions: who are the steps to made a complain about some users who believed that translation from featured articles from other language Wikipedia articles to English Wikipedia was always wrong?? " (diff at 02:33, 2 November 2016)

However referring to the exchange on your talk page that you have deleted, and the ANI to which it refers, you made 24 edits to Margaret Theresa of Spain between 28th and 31st of October 2016‎ history without one comment yet you had promised in the recent ANI to do so.

It is only because of the questions ask of you on your talk page that it is public knowledge among those who read your talk page that you copied the text from another wikipedia language. This is a breach of copyright see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia more specifically the sections: "Attribution is required for copyright", "Proper attribution" and "Translating from other language Wikimedia projects" also see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content

  1. Fix your copyright violation as soon as you can (if having read the guidance this is not clear then ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems for clarification and/or help).
  2. Have you ever copied any information from another Wiki without providing proper attribution?
  3. Do not make any more article edits before you fix the copyright violation(s) you have created.

If you do not fix you copyright violation or answer the question in point 2. I will take administrative action.

-- PBS (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't known that the translation from another wikipedia article to English needs an atribution: I made for the last 8 years without any complain until now (for example, from Polish to English wikipedia); concerning about your thread to take administrative action don't worry, i won't translated any other article for the sake of copyright violation -- you can be in peace now. Thanks Aldebaran69 (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Ready, I put in the edit summary of Empress Margaret Theresa an hyperlink who directed to the article, following the requirements of WP:COPYWITHIN. Aldebaran69 (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I also made ammended the article of Empress Maria Anna with my previous translation, but now placing the hyperlink following the requirements of WP:COPYWITHIN. Aldebaran69 (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Copying from a foreign language Wikiepdia does not necessarily meet the content requirements of English Wikipedia

From the edit you left on the talk page of User :Kansas Bear (diff) at 02:19, 2 November 2016 ) .I also see that Maria Anna of Spain is a copy from the Russian Wikipeida for which you did not give a"Proper attribution". To answer you question different language Wikipedia use different criteria for what is a good article and featured articles. For example the German Wikipedia gave the article de:Battle of Ligny featured article status although it had no inline citations at all (it now carries just one which is one that I added!). In contrast the English article carries one of more citations for just about every paragraph. Which article the German or English comes closer to meeting the English Wikipedia content policies? Specifically WP:NOR and WP:V? -- PBS (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have filed a Contributor copyright investigation that involves you. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Requests. -- PBS (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm sorry for all the incovenients and my bad mood to answer. I hope that placing the hyperlynk of WP:COPYWITHIN from now could be fixed future problems about translations. Aldebaran69 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Eleonora Gonzaga (1630–1686)

I see from you edit history that you have been editing Eleonora Gonzaga (1630–1686).

In the four edits you have made to date you have not added one edit line comment. This is a breach of what you promised at ANI. You must add edit comments as you implied you would at the October ANI

You have added two short citation to the article without adding long citations. Just because you have added a {{underconstruction}} does not excuse this, breaking of citations. If you add a short citation either add the long citation with the short citation or in the next edit if you can not access the appropriate section during the first edit.

See the section WP:NONENG in the policy WP:V:

"However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance."

You used a link to:

Yet the website www.habsburger.net also has the same articles in English

So when using www.habsburger.net use /www.habsburger.net/en

I found your format of: Martin Mutschlechner: Ferdinand III., Eleonora von Gonzaga und die Italiener in Wien in: www.habsburger.net [retrieved 04 November 2016] very confusing, because Martin Mutschlechner is the author of the piece but as the format is not standardised like that of the citation {{cite book}} which you have used, elsewhere "Martin Mutschlechner:" the colon at the end does not match the delimiter used in that {{cite book}} so I suggest that you use {{cite web}} for such citations.

-- PBS (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ready, hyperlink added to article in edit section, article finished and sources placed in the references section, habsburger.net links changed to english. Aldebaran69 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

is an awful format. For a start you are still including &hl=ru in your url strings which means that you copied it from the Russian page without considering that it is English people reading it (so instead of the Google meta information appearing in English it appears in Russian). This is particularly bizarre in this case as it is in German. If you use the Google book tool Converts bare url into {{cite book}} format (as I suggested earlier in the next section) the output will be more usual:

This formatter does not pick up that it is in German and the url can be move to the page number so a little hand editing produces this:

  • Braun, Bettina; Keller, Katrin; Schnettger, Matthias (4 April 2016). Nur die Frau des Kaisers?: Kaiserinnen in der Frühen Neuzeit (in German). Böhlau Verlag Wien. p. 117. ISBN 978-3-205-20085-7.

-- PBS (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Eleonora Gonzaga (1630–1686)#Verification and page needed tags where I have added some additional comments addressed to you about this page. -- PBS (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Citation tools

DYK toolbox

There are a number of tools that can help create templates citations:

These tools are not fool proof and you may need to alter the output to meet you needs but they speed up the creation of {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} references.

This is useful for retrospectively changing bare URLs into {{cite web}}

Again not fool proof -- some hand alterations may be needed -- but the output is far more useful that bare urls.

See also

Fix a citation so that it does not go dead:

-- PBS (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Aldebaran69. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Advice

Hi! Regarding translating articles. Would you be so kind to look here: Template:Translated_page. It would be great if you would include this template in the talk pages of translated articles. The parameters version and insertversion would be of great value. Regards. --Re5x (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hi! Is it fine if you can translate this article: es:Príncipe de Asturias into English? (Or at least expand the existing article with information from the Spanish wikipedia). Regards :) --Re5x (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Waiting a week

{{User:MiszaBot/config
 | algo=old(7d)
 | archive={{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive %(counter)d
 | counter=10
 | maxarchivesize=200K
 | archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
 | minthreadsleft=0
 | minthreadstoarchive=1
}}

I noticed that you waited less than a day to remove other's comments without a reply, although you well know that it annoys many other editors when you do that. I suggest strongly that you implement the above as it will automate the saving of sections after a week. You can still save by year by incrementing the counter= at the end of each year. -- PBS (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help...I'm already reply to the user in his talk page, so for this reason and put in archive his comment, but now I'm hope be useful and could work! (I don't very good with templates), but thanks anyway Aldebaran69 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Eleanor of Navarre.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Eleanor of Navarre.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Discasto (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aldebaran69/Archive_11&oldid=803568976"