User talk:Henq

==Welcome== Hello Henq and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. Try to be civil by following simple guidelines and signing your talk comments with ~~~~ but never forget that one of our central tenets is to ignore all rules.

If you want to learn more, Wikipedia:Tutorial is the place to go, but eventually the following links might also come in handy:
Help
FAQ
Glossary
Manual of Style

Float around until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. Additionally, the Community Portal offers a more structured way to become acquainted with the many great committees and groups that focus on specific tasks. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Wikipedia:Translation into English as well as the cleanup, welcoming, and counter-vandalism committees. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy. If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 01:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On June 10, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maria Pavlovna of Russia, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 08:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Please see my comments on User:Cfvh's talk page. I don't think I'm being unreasonable by asking you to use WP:RM. Appleseed (Talk) 19:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More page moves

Henq, I'm sorry but it almost seems as if you were acting in bad faith with your recent mass article renames. You know these are controversial moves, and you've been asked to use WP:RM before, yet you persist and rename even more articles. Can you explain this bahaviour please ? --Lysy^talk 18:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your own conduct tastes bad. You first moved the article to your preferred location, then open a RM. Majority had spoken in talk page a couple of days ago. We should give your RM the setting that you are requesting that move, not opposing it. Henq 18:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not move the article to my preferred location, which would be different. I only reverted the rename which had clear opposition and opened a formal request for move as should have been done in the first place, since the move was obviously a controversial one. Now, can you answer my question and explain why you have renamed the remaining articles, knowing that such renames are controversial and having been asked to use WP:RM before ? --Lysy^talk 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with Lysy: we were discussing the moves when you came in and all of a sudden moved the article to better suit your own liking. Care to explain that in proper place? //Halibu tt 20:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Hohenzollern cadet line

Regardless of whether or not William renounced his claim, and Karl Anton (or Charles Anthony, whichever you may prefer) did not, the thing I was trying to get at is that Prince Carlos is from a morganatic branch of the family, despite his styling of prince. Prince Ferfried has a son as a result of a morganatic marriage, Prince Moritz, but he is not listed as in line. Therefore, as a non-dynast of the House of Hohenzollern, neither should Carlos Patrick. Morhange (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response in article talk page. See carefully the potential difference between morganaticity in Germany and non-dynasticity in Romania. Henq (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saxe-Meiningen

What are "both sides" you are talking about? You don't even have a source for a side. Please observe WP:NPOV and WP:OR and do not hypothesize on the dynasticity of British brides. If it's not sourced, it doesn't belong. If you don't amend the article to reflect sourced material, I will be tagging it for either facts or for review. And then it's not me disputing with you, it's the fact that there are no sources for your hypotheses. Charles 17:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I whole-heartily concur with Charles — your behaviours, unless it ceases soon, will land you banned. And we honestly don't want that. D B D 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to maintain civility

Henq, your comments at the recent 3RR case against User:Charles seem to be a bit uncivil, especially considering that you were not involved in the case until after it was closed. Please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so directly criticizing an editor in the way you did to Charles is generally seen as uncivil. Eastern European topics have long had this problem, and so as a result of the Digwuren case, an uninvolved administrator is able to place restrictions on editors engaging in incivility. In the future, please refrain from adding criticism of other editors to a discussion as it is unlikely to help resolve the situation and reflects poorly on you. This is meant to be a friendly reminder that since this project requires collaboration, we're all on the same team. Thanks and cheers! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 48 hours for stalking and harassing User:Charles. When the block expires, feel free to be constructive, however, any more harassment will likely result in an indef block. Regards, Keilana^talk_(recall) 15:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regard this block unwarranted. This is a proof that User:Keilana is not an appropriate person to be an administrator. I have not "stalked" User Charles. Henq (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the evidence and it seems that you have been following him around and harassing him. I will block you again if you continue to disrupt. I replied to your complaint thus: (This will be posted to both talk pages.) I must say first of all, that as I'm looking through the evidence, Henq does seem to be following Charles around. At the talk page of Charles Vyner Brooke, User:Charles edits the page before Henq does, first at 4:55 UTC on December 27. He later edits the page again on January 3rd (at 22:06). About 45 minutes later (22:50), Henq shows up at the talk page for the first time. That looks really suspicious to me, seeing as (A)Neither Henq nor Charles has actually edited the article in question, and (B)Henq had never touched the discussion before Charles showed up there, and Charles had contributed to discussion before. Therefore, it is likely that Henq followed Charles to the page. (By the way, the comment about the identity was meant to be sarcastic, if I read it correctly.) As I look through the contribs, some encounters may be coincidental—people with the same interests sometimes show up in the same place. Nevertheless, though, it's clear that Charles is sometimes being followed by Henq. Best, Keilana^talk 14:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people keep others' pages watchlisted, and comment on issues that may affect them. I do it, many other editors and admins do it, and apparently Charles does it. If I see a comment on someone's talk that may affect me, I go look at it. It's a common practice, not stalking at all. Yes, in some places it has to have been coincidence because I know that the two of you have a common interest in royalty. However, in several instances, you (Henq) appeared behind Charles at a place that you had never edited before, sometimes within an hour of his edit, to express a contrary opinion. What exactly do you feel is wring with your block? If you felt it was unjustified, you should've posted an unblock request, and another admin would have taken care of it. I do appreciate that you came to me with your concerns, but in any case, I think the block was justified. Best, Keilana^talk 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]