User talk:Shilkanni

Welcome!

Hello, Shilkanni, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Sorry for the late welcome :-] ! Deiaemeth 18:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Habsburg

What nerve do you have to move a page while it is in the middle of a vote and to change the names in the vote? Charles 15:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing Shilkanni didn't notice the proposal to move. You have to check the talk page or know about WP:RM for that. I've restored it for now. Appleseed (Talk) 17:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish monarchs

Please refrain from moving Polish monarchs, the respective naming policy is discussed at Wikipedia:Naming_convention#Polish_monarchs. Also, please read about double redirects and how to avoid them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is a totally misguided thing, clearly. Their naming is directed at WP:NC of monarchs etc. Much of the specific discussion for Polish monarchs you referred to, is directly against those established, general instructions. I remind you about such things as WP:UE and the NC for monarchs that clearly says that the country is mentioned. While it would be possible to draw new guidelines to specific questions about Polish ones, inside the principles of gemeral naming conventions, it is totally impossible to make such contrary policy. These are obviously the reasons why the discussion you refer to, is yet a proposal, and has no viable possibility to become a policy here. Shilkanni 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus' moves

Apparently, Piotrus feels that the latter name versions in the following table are more in English than the preceding ones:

Vladislaus I, Duke of Poland to Władysław I Herman

John II Casimir of Poland to Jan II Kazimierz Vasa

Casimir III of Poland to Kazimierz III the Great

Casimir II of Poland to Kazimierz II the Just

Casimir I of Poland to Kazimierz I the Restorer

Vladislaus II, Duke of Poland to Władysław II the Exile

Vladislas I of Poland to Władysław I the Elbow-high

Sigismund III of Poland to Zygmunt III Vasa

John I of Poland to Jan I Olbracht

Sigismund II of Poland to Zygmunt II August

Sigismund I of Poland to Zygmunt I the Old

Casimir Jagiellon to Kazimierz IV Jagiellon

Henry IV, Duke of Poland to Henryk IV Probus

Vladislaus III, Duke of Poland to Władysław III Spindleshanks

Vladislaus of Hungary and Poland to Władysław III of Varna

Vladislas IV of Poland to Władysław IV Vasa

your message

hello Shilkanni, maybe if you could refer to which article you are talking about, I would be able to answer your message better. I am assuming you are referring to Elisabeth of Austria (d. 1505) maybe? I am aware that the title "Archduke" was not fully introduced until Rudolf IV, however the article states that she was already referred as such (or that the Habsburgs already called themselves as such), therefore I do not see any problems with the referral. with kind regards Gryffindor 09:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why you are using this aggresive tone (Have you?? [1]) with me, or seem to be getting worked up about this issue. Of course the other articles will include the title "Archduke" in the entry as well, but that takes time and effort and I honestly have other things to do before I get to that. And thank you for that quick overview of history about the title. If you feel so strongly about the title in the introduction (even though she was apparently referred as such) feel free to remove it again, I won't argue about it further. Gryffindor 10:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing aggressive. Only super-sensitive may imagine such. It is only natural to ask whether the error is systematical, i.e repeated over a multitude of articles. Of course you are incorrect in alleging "she was referred as such" - there are no documents to show such (contemporaneous) referral. Shilkanni 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To you it may seem so but you are coming dangerously close, it is not necessary to use double signs in questions, so please be aware of Wikiquette. If you state that she was not "Archduchess" of Austria, then which title did she carry? Duchess? Gryffindor 14:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is most probable that she actually carried no formalized title before her marriage. You should understand the medieval culture and context: everyone there around knew that she was the daughter of the late king of at least three kingdoms, emperor-elect. She did not need any title... As far as I can surmise, her "title" presumably was "daughter of the king", daughter of emperor...
In those times, there was no widespread use of so-called courtesy titles - all titles were basically "substantive". German fiefholders shared their fiefs between male members of the dynasty, so each male's title (was it count, duke, whatever) actually signified a portion of the land itself and a substantive hold of the title (or its share). French and other Latin-based fiefs on the other hand went to one holder at a time, usually the eldest son. There, younger members of the family were just noble persons, not having a courtesy title. This all left daughters usually without any formal titles.
After her marriage, she naturally was the queen (consort) -i.e, regina, of Poland, grand duchess of Lithuania, etc.
You have to understand that the courtesy of allowing all children of a German noble (duke, archduke, count...) to use the same title, is a later courtesy tradition, and fully became in use typically as late as sometime in 18th century. It evolved as one of the results of fiefholder patriarchs stipulating a decree forbidding the division of their lands between sons which decrees took place in 17th and 18th centuries usually. In 16th century, counties and duchies were yet divided all the time (cf histories of Brunswick, Hesse, Saxony-Ernestines, Anhalt). When fathers stipulated the inheritance be indivisible and going to the eldest son only, the old custom of sharing continued in junior sons having a right to the title however, and that development quite allowed daughters to share the title too. At approximately same era (17th century, 18th century), some kingdoms already legislated formal princely titles to younger children of their monarchs.
I would say that even "duchess" is an anachronism regarding Elisabeth. Shilkanni 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav as a name

Hi Shilkanni. I am not sure your addition of the note on a possible non-Slavic origin of the name Vladislav is either correct or useful in the article Ladislaus. The pre-Slavic Bulgar language was either Turkic or Iranian, or a mixture of both. It would have been incapable of producing such a form. The name is purely Slavic in origin, as you note in your attempt at translating it as "Fame and Power". But this may be a folk etymology connected with the modern senses of the words. The name could equally well mean "Slavic Ruler" or the like. The alternate Polish form you cite is simply a product of a particular kind of East Slavic dialect evolution (compare Ukrainian Volodimir for Vladimir). If anything, it confirms the Slavic origin of the name. At any rate, while I find your contribution interesting, I think it is too speculative to include in this Wikipedia article. Likewise, the passages cited from German, Hungarian, and Polish, do not really belong in this English-language reference page. I think you should remove these additions. Best, Imladjov 14:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shilkanni, the following is in response to your question on my talk page. I have removed the following passages from the Ladislaus disambiguation page for the time being.

"Hungarian sources: "A László férfinév a szláv Vladislav névből fejlődött Ladiszló, Ladszló, Lacló, László alakokon keresztül. A szláv név elemeinek jelentése: hatalom és dicsőség."

Polish sources: "Władysław lub Ładysław - imię męskie pochodzenia słowiańskiego. Wywodzi się od słowa oznaczającego 'ten, który zawładnął sławą'. Istnieje teoria, iż jest to pierwotnie imię bułgarskie, zapożyczone przez Węgry do Polski i za pośrednictwem polskim zaszczepione w Czechach. Na polskim gruncie powstała również inna forma tego imienia, bardziej dostosowana do specyfiki jęz. polskiego: Włodzisław. Nie jest możliwe określenie, która z tych form pojawiła się w Polsce wcześniej."

German sources: "Die Herkunft ist aus dem slawischen Raum und bedeutet in der wortwörtlichen Übersetztung 'Ruhm und Macht'. Eine Theorie besagt, dass der Name ursprünglich aus dem Bulgarische Sprache entlehnt wurde und später nach Ungarn und Polen gelangte. Die Tschechen haben den Namen durch Polen vermittelt bekommen. Im polnischen Sprachgebraucht existiert noch die alternative Form Włodzisław. Welche der beiden Formen zuerst in Polen benutzt wurde ist nicht bekannt."

The origin of the name is in Slavonic languages and their region. The literal translation is "Fame and Power". There is a theory that the name was originally loaned from ancient non-Slavic Bolgar language in Ukraine and taken later to Poland and Hungary. The Czechs have received the name from Poland. In Polish usage there however existed an alternative form, Wlodzislaw (though it is unknown which of the two forms was firstly used in proto-Polish)."

Without actually knowing Hungarian (apart from a very few words and expressions), I can assure you that the Hungarian article merely derives the name from Slavic Vladislav, and documents several archaic Hungarian renditions before the current standard form László, followed by a translation of the name.

The Polish text acknowledges the existence of an alternate form Ładysław (which would be equivalent to Vladislav vs. Ladislav in Czech, and to Ulászló vs. László in Hungarian), the derivation from Slavic, and the meaning of the name to the effect of "one who has conquered/acquired glory". Then it says that there is a theory that the name was originally Bulgarian (nothing about pre-Slavic or origin on Ukrainian territory), and from there, via Hungary, it came to Poland, and thence to Bohemia. In Poland a dialectic form Wołodzisław appeared, but there is some doubt as to which form came first in Polish usage. The German text corresponds almost completely to the Polish, except that it does not actually represent Hungary as an intermediate link in the transmission from Bulgaria to Poland.

At any rate the name is Slavic, and its alleged origin in Bulgaria may have nothing more to it than the mere fact that the first large corpus of Slavic-language texts were produced there. The same name is attested at the same time among other South Slavs. I still think that the preceding passages are really not necessary on this page, which is, after all, simply intended for disambiguation between different bearers of the name. The basic import, i.e., the Slavic origin of the name and its variant forms, have been incorporated into the article. Best wishes, Imladjov 23:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

What on earth are you talking about? Charles 16:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanover

Where is the current Prince of Hanover's page? Charles 17:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst August, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg

I believe it is in its place, i.e there where it was, say, a week ago. You remember: there was a RM ongoing. Of course I cannot guarantee its place, as a certain friend of yours is apparently going around deleting pages (I saw at least one rogue page deletion, was it yesterday or two days ago). Shilkanni 22:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was this rogue page deletion and which friend would this be? Charles 22:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop moving pages without following the Requested moves procedure. That is not the way to move things. You simply cause link problems that bots then have to chase after and fix. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 00:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Page moves are allowed as usual edits, if they are not against conventions. Please, Jtdirl, show individually where moves are improper. Shilkanni 00:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding in POV and speculation into articles. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 00:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

I regard your accusation reprehensible, and wrong. Please, Jtdirl, desist from such behavior. My edits are not speculation and they are intended for NPOV. Please calm down and discuss each problem clearly. first and foremost, Jtdirl, please desist from giving high-handed commands - such are not acceptable. Shilkanni 00:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP operates on the basis of consensus rules. You are breaking them. A number of users have asked you to stop moving pages around. You keep ignoring them. You cannot make up your own set of rules. Follow the RM procedure like everyone else. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 00:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

It seems, Jtdirl, that you do not know the rukle or you have your own less-than-common interpretation. Please read the RM guidelines anew. And, you should rwally grow to be a bit mnore constructive, so, please point out individually what is wrong in a specified move. Shilkanni 00:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are't using the RM procedure. That is how moves are made except in exceptional circumstances (such as dealing with vandalism, correcting spelling errors, etc). And please read WP:NPOV. You are adding in text that breaks NPOV all over the place. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 00:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Shilkanni, you have been making quite a number of controversial edits. Pipe down a little and stop reverting to POV content while citing Jtdirl's edits as vandalism. How can calling Michael undisputedly be a prince of Hohenzollern be NPOV? Charles 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of terminology can never be used under NPOV. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

dear Charles, are you of the opinion that it is POV to mention that M is undisputedly a prince of H. ? Please kindly specify your objection and its grounds. Afaik he actually is, among other things, a P of H and it is relatively widely acknowledged. As such, his daughters as far as I understand, have the same title, princess, by his that right. Shilkanni 00:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would never use Hohenzollern to substantiate princely status when Romanian and Hohenzollern princely titles are equally defunct. Charles 01:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you not. That's hardly decisive, however. In my knowledge, HRE princely titles are recognized quite universally as nobility titles, and they tend not to be disputed (whereas, unfortunately, those Balkan titles seem to be under some dispute). Now, we may very well get an extremist editor who wants to get rid of all "princesses" re Romania. I would rather have at least some undisputed facts on the table. Besides, I am convinced that the family in question have not renounced their P of H titles (have they? how do you explain Radu's sudden preference for H-V title?), so it is certainly not wrong to mention those titles in the article - as such have been in use in their family after losses in other cases. You should check Elena Lupescu as princess. In my editorial philosophy, it is just proper to mention disputes and both sides if any issue mentioned in the article or in its title actually are under dispute irl. I believe that is the quintessential content of NPOV. Shilkanni 01:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radu's "title" is not a title of the Holy Roman Empire. I am of the opinion that the daughters of King Michael and Queen Anne are all Princesses of Romania and of Hohenzollern. However, I believe both titles are equally valid (even if invalid). It is sloppy and hopelessly NPOV to state that Hohenzollern is undisputed in the case that Romania is disputed as a title. Last time I checked, Romania and Germany (and indeed, most relevant parts of the former HRE) are republics. HRE titles in general are recognized about as universally as the Romanian Royal Family's titles (that is, Anne, Michael and their children are accorded Romanian title in press and at various courts). There are times and places where they are or are not accorded the titular dignities. Charles 01:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can never rule on facts. It can report other's interpretation of them. It is absolutely not allowed under NPOV to use a word like "undisputably". If it is disputed, and titles of deposed royals are, then that word cannot be used because it is editorialising. A source should be provided and cited. Please read WP:NPOV. You don't seem to have done so. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

dear Jtdirl, is this actually about the word "undisputedly"??? Could you kindly say it then (in the future at least) already in the beginning. You know, when you are able to specify your objection, then it begins to be a start of constructive work. Hope it does not take so long in the future. I am not pushing that word in any big manner - other expressions surely could confer the idea. Shilkanni 01:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question

hi Shilkanni, how are you? Sorry but I had to revert a couple of moves that you have done with the Hanover line, please wait and discuss these important things first before moving. I have not reverted everything you have moved, however certain things really should be discussed first. I also noticed that you once moved the articles of the Polish monarchs. I noticed that there is some discussion going on about the naming format of Polish royals and maybe nobility as well. I noticed that they are all kept in Polish, which I find rather strange considering this is the English language Wikipedia. What is your opinion on this? Do you happen to know where the proper forum is where the discussion is going on? There is so much of that discussion I got completely lost in my search. thanks and with kind regards Gryffindor 14:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hannoverian titles

Thanks for your kind invitation, but debates of this kind bore me to tears. It´s a pity the Jacobins didn´t guillotine the lot of them. Adam 14:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moving pages unilaterally

dear Shilkanni,

please stop moving pages of royals and nobles without explaining your reasons better. You have moved a considerable amount of pages without ever fixing any links, which has created double and triple-redirects as a result. Please stop and submit thorough reasoning before such moves. You can post questions if in doubt on the respective discussion and talk pages, or contact and ask the user who are directly involved with such articles. However it is not encouraged to move pages when the case is not clear. I have received a note from another user concerning your conduct, therefore please abide by the rules and procedures. If your ideas and reasoning is good, I am sure users will agree with you, however you need to explain more before moving. with kind regards Gryffindor 10:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

warning: no ownership

Shilkanni, please don't jump to conclusions or assume bad faith. I explained myself on the talk page before making my edits. We can continue the discussion there. Appleseed (Talk) 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jagiello

As far as spelling, I'd go with the way I spell it above. But I remain dubious of this - I think his name as King of Poland should be part of the title. If the consensus goes against me on that, I will of course concede graciously, so long as this isn't a precedent of any kind, but I'm not yet convinced this is the way to go. In terms of spelling, I think we shouldn't use Polish diacritical marks, which most anglophones can't write on their keyboards, in titles. My personal view is that only the basic French/German/Spanish/Portuguese/Scandinavian diacritics, which are found in ASCII, should be used in article titles. I'm not sure where wikipedia consensus is on that, though. However it turns out, I don't think there's any need to change the naming conventions for this one case - at least, I can't think of any. And I still don't see the POV issues. With Western European figures, we never have these kinds of problems. The problem isn't that the names are POV, it's that there's a lot of very POV users who get upset about silly things like what name monarchs go under, and don't care about the common names rule. It's not like we get massive wars between German and Spanish rulers about how to title the article on Charles Quint. john k 19:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish medieval monarchs naming

Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave , Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Jagellion of Bohemia

Sorry to bother you but I have recently created an Anne Jagellion of Bohemia which attempts to list the circumstances of her life and list her 15 children.

User:Maed insists I have cut and paste it from his own recently created but unlinked Queen Anna of Hungary. I honestly could not even find his article until after I created my own. I think the name as it currently stands implies that she is as alive as Queen Sofia of Spain.

He is insists on merging them under his title despite thus duplicating information. Would you mind adding your own opinion in the Talk pages of either article? This is getting to a revert war and I would like to avoid it. User:Dimadick

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox_prussiakstyles

Template:Infobox_prussiakstyles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Charles 17:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template was only used for three kings of Prussia, the last three which were German Emperors. The German Imperial template box has been modified to include the royal titles and this template is not longer needed as no page links to it (and there is a standard template for kings). Charles 17:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not nice to accuse other users

Please refrain from "mudslinging" towards others users such as me, User:Nightstallion or User:Jtdirl for example, is that really necessary? Assume good faith and everything should work out fine, however to throw accusations at others is not necessary. cheers Gryffindor 15:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a democracy

Your use of threats to push forward your own proposition indicates that your oppposition to the name is based on POV grounds. I have seen no sockcheck and untill its done i don't classify people as sockpuppets. You might be surprised that Wiki isn't a democracy anyway and voting doesn't mean everything. As to 9 against 16, that is no concensus and the article isn't changed. --Molobo 18:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in stating that Wikipedia is not a democracy. That is the very reason why you cannot require anyone to respect your interpretations of votes over clear instructions of naming conventions. I have only followed the naming conventions, and you have worked squarely against them. Shilkanni 19:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what convention makes you change Kujawy-Pomorskie (named in CIA World Factbook) with over milion hits on non-Polish internet to something called Kuiavian that gives massive 197 hits ? --Molobo 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Hello, please consider using WP:RM to move pages. Your unilateral moves are creating headaches for many editors. Appleseed (Talk) 19:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headaches are caused by your such friend(s) who disrupted a number of moving polls by sockpuppet use in them. I have only followed the instructions of naming conventions, and you have worked squarely against those. Shilkanni 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with Logologist, take it up with him. As for me, am I asking too much by asking you to use WP:RM? Appleseed (Talk) 20:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what naming convention makes you change Kujawy-Pomorskie (named in CIA World Factbook) with over milion hits on non-Polish internet to something called Kuiavian that gives massive 197 hits ? --Molobo 20:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved back Kujawsko-Pomorskie, your edit wasn't consulted and baseless as the word you wanted to use gave 197 hits versus over a milion. --Molobo 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National anthems

Hello Shilkanni, I'm curious what you think about the article titles in Category:National anthems, many of which are in foreign languages, diacritics and all. (You may be interested to know that the Polish anthem article title is in English, although I'm contemplating moving it.) Appleseed (Talk) 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło

Hi. It seems to me that an attempt to keep "oppose" votes at Jagello's naming as silent, is not succeeding. Rather, it seems to me that people are venting their Opposes to options they finf intolerable, supports to such which they really support, and there is a class between, apparently such options that could be tolerated but not outright supported. I am intending to change voting instruction there to reflect that behavior, seeing that your instruction is not accepted by participants. Shilkanni 21:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see what you mean. But I'd rather that we didn't change the instructions... Instead, I'll go ahead and move the confusing "oppose" votes down to the discussion section. --Elonka 05:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne

By the way, I have been looking at how this ruler is the most vexing of the whole lot. The more I think about the situation, the clearer it seems that all other rulers get solved a bit easier. (Why try this one among the first? As very little has been solved regarding others, there is not ebough to set parameters for this...) But, also it seems to me that as vexing this is, it benefits from a unique solution. Charlemagne is that here also because the less elements the name has, the less warring. HE would have been an object of affection as Charles I of France, Charles I of Germany, Emperor Charles I, Charles the Great of quite many kingdoms... and finally, truthfully, in his era's appellations, Charles I of the Franks. How willing would you be to accept a short name, either Jagello or Jagiello? And what do your books say? Shilkanni 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with the Charlemagne solution, because it seems to be a similar solution to what several other English-language encyclopedias went with. I also agree that the naming of Wladyslaw II Jagiello is vexing. :) However, his sheer fame also offers some guidance, since he is so important, that he is routinely mentioned in many many common reference works. In terms of calling his article "Jagiello" though, I am still opposed, because I think it would be confusing for the typical layperson. My own feeling is that whatever article title that Wikipedia ends up with, it should be something that a layperson can then probably use to lookup the same subject in their home encyclopedia. Based on my research, though some reference works do indeed use "Jagiello" as the term in their index, either as the primary term or at least as a "See also", most encyclopedias do not have an entry for Jagiello. Until/unless this changes, my recommendation is to name the article by the most commonly-used "index term", which, as near as I can tell, is "Wladyslaw II Jagiello", with "Ladislaus II" coming in second. I spent some more time today looking through indexes of other books, via the amazon.com "look at this book's index" feature, and, at least via my own research, the results continued to be confirmed (Wladyslaw II Jagiello first choice, Ladislaus II second choice), with a few minor variations for diacritics and "of country" suffixes. --Elonka 21:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes. But with Wladyslaw, we are stuck with differences of opinion on its spelling in English. I rather would see us with a solution without that name. Is is really necessary in the article name? The beginning of the article then tells about those names... You have seen it: nothing gets consensus, when there are two or more relevant ways to spell something (or corresponding situation: dates are still either NN Month or Month, NN; -ize/-ise ending terms are battlegrounds and the alternative usually is left which it was started with). This naming will have two almost equally-weighed camps in all situations, or worse, everything splits to several fragments. By the way, what do you predict will happen (result) in the current poll? Shilkanni 22:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. :) However, I am still optimistic that the community really can reach a consensus. My recommendation is to let the poll run for at least one week (maybe more), to let as many different people as possible participate. Many wise editors that I know do not visit Wikipedia daily, but only stop in every week or two to offer their opinions on complex matters. I think that the best thing that we can do is to ensure that the poll is advertised in as many places as possible where interested editors will get a chance to see it. I'm also thinking that it might be a good idea to put a "Renaming discussion on the talk page" banner on top of the main article, to ensure that anyone who visits the article is aware that there's a poll going on (not just the people who happen to visit the discussion and policy pages). What is your opinion on that? --Elonka 22:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

Hiya, I'm not sure if you've been following the discussion at "Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07_Polish_Cabal_and_myself_as_its_leader", but we've recently been discussing the issue of whether or not there was consensus to move Polish monarch articles to Polish titles. Since some of your own edits are part of the debate, I wanted to let you know, in case you wanted to come in and speak for yourself, rather than having me speak for you. :) FYI, Elonka 02:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrik Christian Gyldenlove

Generally Wikipedia works better with the simpliest title possible; increases the odds you type in a few words and find your article. Were there so many Ulrik Christian Gyldenlove's that we needed to redirect it? Williamborg (Bill) 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounded a little gruff. Not suggesting we back it out. But perhaps, before taking such action, you might consider hitting the discussion page. Tusen takk - Williamborg (Bill) 03:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tsesarevich

Thank you for the correction. I learn something new every day. Charles 23:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

May I suggest that you were responsible for this edit? --Scooter ^{(this one)} 18:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well. You appear to be active, but you're not answering. May I take this as a "yes"? --Scooter ^{(this one)} 21:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange behaviour of yours. So if I might take this non-answer as a yes, I want to tell you: Don't call me a "vandal" ever again, if you don't know what you're talkin' about. Alright? Thank you for not listening. --Scooter ^{(this one)} 19:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teschen

Hello, Shilkanni;

Is Archduke Leo-Stefan the *only* Teschen left or is he merely the only male remaining? Thanks. Charles 21:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living male with succession rights. There are some non-dynastics, incl his own children, and some female archduchesses. If you find more succession-entitled Teschens, I would bhe happy, but I doubt there isn't. Shilkanni 21:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that that is the case. I managed to check online (however up to date the source might be) and Leo-Stefan is given as the only living archduke of the Teschen line. Presumably would he then be the head of the Teschen line and its "duke"? Charles 21:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the succession scheme of Teschen itself (it came from adopted inheritance, head of house of Habsburg cannot say much to its disposition, and its origin is Lorraine's Italian forefathers of Montferrat, and Italians have a "cavalier" approach to rules as someone wrote to the Almanach de Gotha page). It may have been inherited by a genealogically senior but non-dynastic branch. The case is difficult because at least one senior branch "vanished to southern-american jungles" or something like and Central-European places behind iron curtain also may have had something to do with problems of communications. Shilkanni 21:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bagration issue

Hi. I’m not really an expert on this issue, but I just thought this essay might be of some help. Cheers, Kober 15:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shilkanni, I saw you canvasing anti-Russian editors to support your tendentious edits. Please take a note that such activities may be considered disruptive. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo, your allegation is baseless. You try to accuse me of contacts with "anti-Russians", for example. All in all, my contacts are not "anti-Russian". Your above accusation is regarded as personal attack, and you have been warned of such, and it is also slander. Shilkanni 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you to report the above slander on WP:PAIN, Ghirla is well known to disregard WP:CIV (see his block log). As for the diff, I'd suggest checking further sources, preferably English academic ones, to see of there is a significant faction disagreeing with the other view, or is it a really minor viewpoint.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhrani branch

Howdy, Shilkanni. Well, after having read Sargis’ article more closely, I too find it somewhat biased.

As for the Moukrany branch, it was established, in 1512, by Constantine II of Georgia’s younger son Bagrat, who received a fiefdom centered on the Mukhrani castle. Hence their dynastic name, Bagration-Mukhraneli (i.e., Bagrationi of Mukhrani) and the title of Mukhranbatoni (i.e., the Lord of Mukhrani). The princedom of Mukhrani was not (at least officially) an independent entity, but rather one of the feudatories within the Georgian kingdom. Thus, those claims about "double royalty" seem to be false. The Mukhrani possessions were probably slightly larger in size than Liechtenstein.

The Mukhrani branch acquired the crown of Georgia (more precisely, the kingdom of Kartli, a chief successor state of the medieval kingdom of Georgia) in 1658 when the main Kartli line went extinct, but their rule was terminated by the Persian conquest of the 1730s. In the following decade, the monarchy was restored by another, Kakhetian branch of the Bagrationi dynasty (Teimuraz II, Heraclius II of Georgia). Some representatives of the Mukhrani branch retained their claims to the throne and unsuccessfully plotted against Heraclius II, while others continued to serve loyally to him as the princes of Mukhrani. Hope this help. --Kober 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jagailo/Jagalo

I got it the lazy way: from the styles given in the examples in Jogaila#As_monarch_of_Lithuania_before_religious_conversion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are things coming to when you can't believe Wikipedia articles ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lieven

I'll take look in the next day or two. "Lieven" Latvianized would be Lievens (male) and Lievena or Lievene (female). In term of declining Latvian, "castle of Turaide" would be "Turaides pils," and "owner of Mezotne" would be "Mežotnes īpašnieks." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time flies... did a bit of editing based on Latvian source retrieved online. :-) PētersV 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (an abbreviated version of the me above)[reply]

P.S. I stand corrected, it's "Līveni" plural, "Līvens" male singular, "Līvena" female singular. PētersV 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destructive edit

What precisely was destructive (a word you should be careful of bandying about unless you want to seem prickly, monarchist, and tenderskinned)? Please advise. Also be aware that this article is extremely marginal and needs citations to make it anywhere worth having in Wiki.Mowens35 14:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing one section from the article, erasing all those texts. That piece has also its encyclopedic value. More detailed reply will be in your talk page. Shilkanni 07:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:could someone translate -> article here too

I am always happy to receive msgs. I cannot promise I will translate that soon (I'll add it to my 'to do' list). You may want to ask for translation on WP:PWNB or Wikipedia:Request for translations - perhaps somebody will do it more quickly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCGN

I think you may be interested in that page.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilynsky

Are you prepared to do the same re descendants with every member of ever former, defunct, and otherwise erased royal, princely, ducal, et cetera house? If so, I am prepared to leave Ilynsky's descendants (and presumably as great-grandchildren are born, you will list those as well, ad nauseum). If not, I will continue to delete the information as utterly trivial and unnecessary. In fact, the topheavy list of descendants fully outweighs any other reason for him to have an article. I find the list of descendants ridiculous, especially when you cite his daughters and their descendants, because frankly, once they marry out royal/princely/ducal circles and give birth to commoners, it would seem highly likely that they step out of the lines of succession, et cetera. Fill me in if you can. Also, you do not cite your sources for your information on descent of titles, et cetera. You must do this.Mowens35 14:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to place the citations you have inserted into the text properly as per Wiki, ie as footnotes/references, with pages, publication dates, et cetera. You cannot merely place Stair Sainty in parentheses and think that will do, because it will not. Please revise per Wiki.Mowens35 14:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

In November you moved "Ernst II, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg to Ernest III, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg". I'm assuming this is some kind of weird typo? From the text I'm assuming he's Ernst II, so will move the article there. Was there an Ernst III? Otherwise the page will have to be deleted. Tocharianne 04:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 February and Jogaila request moves are here again!

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
As a voice of reason, perhaps you'd care to join the mediation. There's also an ongoing RM poll, if you'd like to vote in that. I suspect you'll be disappointed. Best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support either Jagello or Jagiello? What other names would be acceptable for you? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 12:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Poll invitation

This, however, is a genuine on-wiki invitation. You discussed the name of Vossstrasse the last time it came up; you may be interested in doing so again. See Talk:Voßstraße#Page_name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Japan taskforces

In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for helping out! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move request for Dąbrowski's Mazurka

Hi, since you participated in a discussion on the previous request move, you may be interested in that Dąbrowski's Mazurka has been nominated again for a move to either Mazurek Dąbrowskiego or Poland Is Not Yet Lost. You are welcome to state your opinion at Talk:Dąbrowski's Mazurka#Requested move (second time). — Kpalion^(talk) 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rudolph I of Germany

hi there, you once voiced your opinion on this topic, maybe you could give your views as well? Gryffindor 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Majorat

An article that you have been involved in editing, Majorat, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst August (1600-1700) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ernst August (1600-1700). Since you had some involvement with the Ernst August (1600-1700) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and United Kingdom" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and United Kingdom has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and United Kingdom until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]