User talk:Konakonian

Welcome

Hello, Konakonian, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Mitford

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your useful contribution to Diana Mitford. The information added does need a citation from a solid reference. I won't revert the addition as I have tagged it, but would be great you could add the source otherwise it may get reverted by someone else shortly. Happy editing and again, welcome. Span (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Mosley

Hi. It would be great if you could provide the source for the info you added to Max Mosley today. Cheers. 4u1e ([User talk:4u1e|talk]]) 23:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on reflection don't worry. Middle names and birthdates for non-notable relatives of notable individuals don't really add any info about the subject of the article and could be considered as detrimental to their privacy. 4u1e (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. What you're doing at Max Mosley is referred to as edit warring - and is not acceptable at Wikipedia. We change Wikipedia by discussion and consensus, and by reference to the vast body of previously agreed guidelines. I removed some changes that you added to the article, and included an explanation in the edit summary, put a note on the talk page and explained myself here, referring to the guidance I think is relevant. If you disagree, which you plainly do, your next move is not to simply reverse my edits without explanation, but to engage in discussion about the correct way forward. I won't revert you again until we've either reached an agreed position by discussion, or it becomes clear that you are unwilling or unable to discuss the point. Please start by explaining why you think the information you are adding is suitable for inclusion at the Max Mosley talk page here. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what you're doing makes no sense. I didn't add the father's name because he's a notable, I added it as an additional information, like on other articles the names of the father or mother or parents of people or their spouses are mentioned. You were so stuck to the non-notability of the person that you forgot that the parent-in-law don't have to be notable to be mentioned as such on their son-in-law's article. Konakonian (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly unusual to do so. Take a look at the following recently promoted featured articles on politicians: Gough Whitlam, Paul E. Patton, David Lewis (politician), Wendell H. Ford, Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, Neville Chamberlain, John Diefenbaker, and William O'Connell Bradley. Parents in law are not always even mentioned, and if they are it's only their occupation or other details relevant to the subject that are given. In Mosley's case there is no such link with Jean's father. Similarly, children's middle names and birthdates are never given. Grandchildren, or the lack thereof, are mentioned very rarely, and again only if relevant to the subject of the article. The article had the "normal" amount of information as it was. Can you explain why it is useful to the article to give the father in law's name, or the children's middle names and birthdays? 4u1e (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple: Max Mosley isn't just a car racing personality. He's also in the line of a noble family. And on this kind of biographies we allways add all the closest genealogical elements to the article. Konakonian (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but on a quick check I couldn't find any evidence that we do normally give this degree of detail for a noble family. I was again looking at the Featured Articles, since those are the ones that have been most closely checked by the Wikipedia community, but only had a time to look at a couple. I'll take a bit more time to look through them more thoroughly. Could you point me in the direction of some articles that do work the way you describe? Many thanks. Also, I can see that this works for Royalty, but are Max's sons actually nobility themselves anyway? The title passed on through one of Max's older half brothers, so presumably neither Max nor his children are nobility. It must stop somewhere, or we'd be up to our knees in titles. 4u1e (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They belong to a House of Baronets, and hereditary title of hereditary knights. Even so, many articles contain the descendants of the people treated on them, and there is nothing wrong with it. Loosing even small information is worse. If they sometimes lack on articles it's not because they can't be there, it only means that someone didn't have the trouble of adding them and focused more on the life. Konakonian (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the direct line and one generation removed for the sons (and only Baronets, not Knights, unless I'm reading the article wrong). We definitely do not include all available information in Wikipedia - see WP:INDISCRIMINATE for further guidance. 4u1e (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at our articles on baronetcy and nobility and it looks like we're not talking about nobility anyway. According to those two articles, Oswald Mosley's heriditary baronetcy does not make him part of the nobility, and in any case, it passes down through the eldest male heir (Nicholas Mosley, Max's half brother) - Max doesn't have a heriditary title, unless he inherited something via Diana (seems unlikely) in which case his sons certainly don't. 4u1e (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've looked at the only two recent (2010) FA promotions for the nobility (I have ignored Royalty, because all of their immediate offspring tend to be notable anyway, and anyone before the 1600s or so, just to let me have a quick look). This left me with Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia and José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco. Neither makes any mention of spouse's parents names. Neither gives full names for any relatives. Grand Duchess Olga's article does give the names and birthdates of both children, as well as the names of grandchildren, although this may be partly because they lived together for a while. Paranhos' article gives the name of only one of his nine children, and he is notable in himself. I am left perplexed as it seems that it would highly unusual to give anything like the level of detail you suggest in the Max Mosley article. I'd be grateful for any Wikipedia guidance you can point me at, or any peer reviewed precendents. Thanks again. 4u1e (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia, her descendants appear on her husbands' articles. José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, still has a new article, and a stub, and beside information on the descendants of Brazilian title holders are generally harder to find. And the author of the article didn't bother much, but that's him. Konakonian (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bearing with me through a lengthy discussion. If I can summarise, I think your argument is that it is normal to include extensive details of all close relatives in articles on the nobility. Assuming that I've understood you correctly, I'm unconvinced by this mainly because having checked quite a few featured quality articles it seems not to be true on Wikipedia. You've provided no details of any articles that do. Are you perhaps applying standards that you would expect on other websites? Further to that, neither Max nor his sons are members of the nobility, nor do they have any other inherited titles. There are however reasons for not including the detail, which include the privacy of the individuals concerned (See WP:BLPNAME), and keeping the articles clear of unnecessary information (See WP:INDISCRIMINATE). If you read the various guidelines, I hope you will be convinced by that argument. If you are not, I suggest we get a third party involved to help us reach a conclusion. Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The lack of quality articles with mentions to family doesn't make it a law. The simple mention of a father in law is not really a great matter. Also, descendants of Baronets are nobility, like it or not. Baronets just don't have alone presumption of notability for wikipedia articles' purpose. But they certainly are nobility. Why should the privacy chriteria be applied to Baronets and not to Princes? If their names appear on public sources, then the presumption of privacy is lost. It doesn't matter if it's wikipedia or thepeerage.com. Also, why such concerns about privacy? Our existence is public in the first place, as are our records. Also, nobility rarelly bothers with it, they'd rather be publicized. Just some mood breakers bother with "privacy". Names and dates are hardly a violation of intimacy. I've seen books and websites where everything appears and there is no absolute and logical reason to do otherwise. I've been dealing with lineages for so long that it's inconceivable to me that someone suddenly complaints about appearing. I treat it so coldly and scientifically that they're just like subjects, and I use no malice in the work. Also, if there is on Max Mosley's article a mention to his son's death, isn't a public article of a greater lack of privacy than just names and dates? After saying that he was a drug addict, saying when he was born and what was his name seems like nothing. Konakonian (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding privacy, It's probably more a case of protecting your bank account than any squeamishness about publicity. Certainly the only two things you effectively need to break into my online bank accounts are the account card and my date of birth. Middle names are also helpful. These are all matters of public record, but the easier they are to get, the greater the degree of risk.

It's simply a matter of being complete and accurate. The person is not just John or Jane, they're John Doe and Jane Doe, born on... Konakonian (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But generally on Wikipedia they are not John Wilberforce Doe, unless they are the subject of the article. And birthdates are not usually given for 'secondary characters'. 4u1e (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's just the information about them or their children. It's better to be complete than to unexplainable be left by half just because we're in the mood for that. Konakonian (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Baronets, I'm mostly going by the article Baronet, which has the very bald statement that "A baronetcy is the only hereditary honour which is not a peerage; baronets are commoners." and the article Nobility which has the equally blunt "a hereditary title need not indicate nobility (e.g. baronet)." Ignoring that, I would also apply the logic that one's nobility must cease at some degree of separation from an actual title holder - otherwise we're probably all noble. It doesn't seem obvious that the grandchildren in the most junior male line share any degree of the grandfather's nobility (if he was), but I've not found any info on how this works.

That's an easy mistake: not being a peer is not the same as not being a nobleman. Also, according to the British Law, everyone who isn't the holder of a title is considered to be a commoner, even if linked to the Royal Family. Because the criteria is the one of having a seat or the right to a seat in the House of Lords. But nobility is way more vast, and includes Esquires. Konakonian (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although those articles say that a baronet is not only not a peer, but not a member of the nobility either. It may be that the articles are wrong (in which case a correction, with a reference, would be great!). 4u1e (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, they are wrong. Being part of noblity is way more vast than that. If an hereditary knight isn't a noble, then who is? Other people with only a cottage can be landed gentry. Konakonian (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, any of them can or could have been called to succeed to the baronetcy. Konakonian (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, regarding the appropriateness of level of detail, I'm sorry but I do not agree for all the reasons above. We're obviously not convincing each other, so rather than us both rehearsing the same arguments, should we perhaps take it to the WP:BIOGRAPHY wikiproject for other views, or get a third opinion via WP:3O? 4u1e (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the simple names of a father-in-law and two sons when so many articles even mention more than that is no reason for any of those measures. Konakonian (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we disagree over the content of an article is sufficient to require further discussion. I'll pose the question at WP:BIO to get a wider opinion and post a link back here. Regards. 4u1e (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need. There is a user I've seen appearing very often on royalty and nobility pages that might be helpful due to his experience. User:Caponer. Konakonian (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel comfortable with that, I'm afraid, given that his talk page contains quite a few references to him as an 'inclusionist'. That might load the dice a little... I've posed the question (hopefully being fair) here, and asked for comments from WP:BIOGRAPHY. Please feel free to drop a note on Caponer's talkpage too. Regards. 4u1e (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you what: for now, just suggest it to User:Agricolae. Konakonian (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected this would happen, which is part of the reason I delayed. I (finally, after a second request from you) gave my opinion, and all you did was rant and rave about how wrong I was. If you bring someone in for their non-biased opinion to break a deadlock in a discussion, there has to be some expectation that you will respect their conclusion, or the whole exercise is pointless, as it was here. Agricolae (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Brandon (standard bearer)

Hi. I realize we haven't gotten off on a good foot because I reverted one of your first edits. That was a mistake, because I didn't look for your source properly and I'm sorry for that. It's admirable that you want to include as much information in articles as possible, but please keep in mind that a person's Wikipedia article is supposed to be a short biography of them and not a full genealogical account. Putting in death and marriage dates of everyone might seem important to you, but especially if you put them in brackets after the person's name it just makes the sentence and/or paragraph harder to read. And someone who is looking for information on William Brandon for example is most likely not looking for the death date of his wife's first or third husband, but more for info on his life in general. People who are looking for genealogical information are much better served at a geneological site on the internet, which is meant for this kind of research and not on Wikipedia, which never aimed to be a full genealogical database of everyone, but to give more general biographical accounts.--Feuerrabe (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I also made a mistake when I repeated the name of the father of his wife and neglected that some people could find it harder to read than me. But it is no excluse to make the article incomplete for lack of dates, they just should be presented in another fashion. But I've solved it in a satisfiable manner. Konakonian (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Cromwell

That is largely a verbal dispute, especially before the establishment of modern peerage law - really seventeenth century, if not nineteenth. But for what it was worth, it was a fresh patent, not an act of restoration; so technically a new peerage. If Henry had been willing to forgive his minister's son completely, he would have been Earl of Essex, like his father. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, then. Konakonian (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC) So, there was never a case where the attainder was lifted only for the smaller titles? Or is it just in case of restoration of a forfeiture? Konakonian (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nesic

Please note that I have removed the personal information you added to the Alex Nesic article as you did not include any sources as is required for verification of biographical information. All of the info is still available in the article history and any of it can be restored as long as it is supported by reliable sources. Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source

The use of Plantagenet as a surname is an anachronism; sometimes an unavoidable one. Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, appears to have used it as a nickname; none of his descendants did. I approve of the quest for uniformity, and am more or less willing to tolerate it as a title; but the articles on the family should not say what is not the case. Trusting Wikipedia articles is trusting an unreliable source.

Her brother was styled Earl of Warwick; he was not even styled Earl of Salisbury. There is no evidence that he was Earl of Warwick; he was a minor or a prisoner all his life - and his claim to Salisbury is less. The purely verbal debate on whether Clarence's children inherited their father's titles (restored) or their grandfather's titles would have made no sense to their contemporaries; the titles reverted to the crown when the Kingmaker died, and were regranted to his (elder) son-in-law - as was customary.

As for the rest of this, read Complete Peerage, or other reliable sources, not genealogies. The concept of heritable baronies was still being worked out in the sixteenth century; the nature of inheritance through females was still debateable. To say she was Baroness Montagu is to import Stuart and Victorian law back where it did not apply; she was not Baroness Montagu (much less "7th and 10th" Baroness Montagu); her son was. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says, correctly, As countess of Salisbury, Margaret Pole was the first and, apart from Anne Boleyn, the only woman in sixteenth-century England to hold a peerage title in her own right. But both were special grants by the Crown; the normal course was that a peerage would be held by a man, who could sit in the House of Lords and hold the King's offices. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no law on the Royal Succession in the case of a King with daughters, until Henry VIII passed one - actually several. The succession to Henry I had been decided by force, and by a compact between the parties, not by law; and Henry's various laws on the succession imply different orders of inheritance. That the Crown, after his children - would pass to the King of Scots was not decided - until it did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Warwick's titles were not forfeited; they were lost. In the thirteenth century, titles of a man with two daughters - and the attached lands - would have been inherited by his elder daughter's husband; in the fifteenth they fell to the crown (he was not attainted) and regranted to his elder son-in-law - not his daughter. Now his baronies would be in abeyance, and the fate of his earldoms would depend on the House of Lords. Three centuries; three different laws. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Crown: Yes, the Lancastrian position was for Salic descent, and Parliamentary title (this is why Henry VII's title was "by right of conquest and by right of Lancaster"; his Lancastrian claim was in the female line from a dubious legitimation); the Yorkist claim was by female descent, but the basis of both regimes was conquest - and consent, which made the conquest possible. The descent of France hadn't been decided either, until the assembled nobility looked around for a reason to prefer Philip V of France to Edward III of England. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of them used it; Plantagenet as a surname is a later invention, although a convenient one. But you will observe that it was removed from Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk - and not by me; I am content to let the wiki-process work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of John Seymour (died 1464)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on John Seymour (died 1464) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. CyberDiablo 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - I removed the speedy tag. He's obviously notable, and we're grateful for you having created the article. To prevent future misunderstandings of this nature, it might be a good idea to create draft-in-progress articles in a userspace sandbox (I use User:Hit bull, win steak/WORK) and then move them into articlespace once they're in a more advanced state of completion. I've found that it's sometimes easier to avoid overzealous new page patrollers that way. Cheers! -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Maurice le Brun, 1st Baron Brun

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Maurice le Brun, 1st Baron Brun requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Nz101 - Talk :: Contribs 06:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of user:G.-M. Cupertino

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not a sockpuppet. User:Kww seems to have blocked me without any reason. For what I've read about sockpuppetry it seems that either because I'm making edits to the same vast area of knowledge, or not so much, or because I'm using a public computer at my workplace that a blocked editor might have once used, maybe years ago, I'm getting blocked too. If this is the case, I've seen an IP in Bahrein or something being blocked for vandalism and when someone complainted that it would block half of the people of that country's city where they were, the Administrator simply answered that he or she should create an account. I have mine blocked. I don't want to believe that I am the only person in my country to like the Tudor period, among other things. It makes no sense to be mistaken with the person whose edits I've actually sometimes corrected or improved. You and others corrected and completed my edits and you weren't accused of anything. That is, people can't be blocked just because they make edits on articles where someone else also did. Also, apparently the absence of User:G.-M. Cupertino from this particular discussion if not anything else at least to stand for me might be dued to the fact that his discussion page where he is allowed to appeal from his blocked was blocked from being edited by him thanks to an overzealous Administrator and probably can't even edit his own user page, otherwise he'd most likely have done it by now.

Decline reason:

I've checked and you are indeed a sockpuppet. I've also blocked your other account, User:Harry Tudor. Continuing to create accounts does nothing to support the idea you should be unblocked. TN X Man 23:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Just to clear things up: User:Harry Tudor isn't even me. Also, as I told you, I'm using a vast public network. The only thing you discovered is that apparently both of us have used the same IP address. A sockpuppet is someone who actually is another blocked user, not someone who just happens to use the same network. You can't conclude it's the same person. The only thing you found out with your checking thing is that I've used a common IP, you can't conclude that we're the same person, it's an false assumption and an accusation I resent, and isn't truthfull. Unless the policy is to assume that for security reasons. In that case, there is not much I can do. Again, there is another policy that allows people to create an account to prevent vandalism from an IP. Of course then the good account will give the same results as the IP, but no one is punished for that. What should I do to be allowed to edit? Also, this is a new network, how can you make a connection to a user that doesn't appear for the above mentioned reasons for over a year or so?

Decline reason:

After a review of the accounts' contribution histories, I find your explanation to be lacking. —DoRD (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.