User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Please don't be unneccesarily personal

If you would refrain from unneccessary comments like "Sorry Serge" and keep our interaction, when neccessary, strictly impersonal, that would be much appreciated and very constructive. I have never addressed or referred to you in any similar manner. This is my courteous request, and hope you will respect it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You are bothered by "sorry Serge"? Precious. Surtsicna (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Continued sarcasm will not help you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I am so lucky to have you to tell me what's good for me. Surtsicna (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Continued sarcasm will not help you. Adhering to guideline (WP:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor") will, definitely. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Sarcasm definitely helps me deal with your repetitive and embarrassingly immature messages. But for now I've had it, so buzz off. Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Surtsicna, dont bother, just go on. That is just a way to try to master and make you uncertain. No need to put any time in this matter. See my page too for same kind of mastering. Last time I mentioned hus name, though, I was not told anything (might be because I said he was good in a subject). Best regards Adville (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

All of us, you, me, everyone, are expected to work according to guidelines, such as WP:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Advising someone not to work according to such guidelines (which do not exist at Swedish Wikipedia) may not be good advice here. Taking every opportunity to try to get involved in other people's discussions - att lägga näsan i blöt - just to score antagonistic points against one cerrtain user, may also not be a good idea. I never do that. We should all try to create a peaceful constructive working enviornment, not just for ourselves but for everyone. I try hard. Most people recognize that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, always asume good faith in other editors edits. Instead of starting this kind of discussion all the time, taking yours and others tiime, read what the user writes and answer on that. You do not have to start thinga that you know will annoy the other, which allways ends with "keep away from my discussion page", and not any constructive arricle discussion. This is a friendly advice, from me to you so you will not be in all hard pseudo debates you say you hate. Even if it happens to be that you let a user maybe breake a small not significant rule that you happen to think is one of the most important. Adville (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, cut the crap, Serge. Saying "sorry, Serge" is not commenting on a contributor. How do you not tire of ceaselessly playing a victim? Surtsicna (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The word "hate" is not in my vocabulary.

I am not at all a victim here. The victim is the project "English Wikipedia" when such an important working-atmosphere rule is habitually ignored by such a valuable contributor as you (sincere comment), and when such guidelines are called small, not significant rules by a user who swoopes in here to argue from Swedish Wikipedia, where there are no such rules at all.

Surtsicna: every good wish! Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I assure you that the project will survive me saying "sorry, Serge". Thank you for your sincere comment; I wish you too would spend more time editing articles than scolding others. In the future, if you have complaints about my conduct, please take them directly to the administrators' noticeboard. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI: SergeWoodzing was permanently blocked on Swedish Wikipedia for blatant COI and repeated harassment of fellow users. Disembodied Soul (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Disembodied Soul and Adville. I can tell that some users might feel harassed, but I just roll my eyes, sigh, and get on with my beeswax. It is also quite easy to shrug him off. Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus claims

Hiello, I saw that you made this edit, without taking part in the debate on the talk page. In relation to that, can you produce any reference for claims that there is some kind of "consensus" on Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy? Several linguistic sources that prove the non-existence of such "consensus" are mentioned here. Sorabino (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You are the one trying to include text that is disputed by others. That means that it is up to you to get a consensus for that change. Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not claiming that there is any kind of "consensus" on "Serbo-Croatian" linguistic controversy, on the contrary - such consensus does not exist, and that is why all views on the subject should be represented in the article. Sorabino (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Merovingian kings

Hi surtsicna,

Ive seen your edits on quite a number of articles on medieval europe and I would just like to ask for your help in searching for citations regarding the birth and death years of a few lesser known Merovingian kings (the rois faineats) since right now quite a few of the dates/sources given are dubious.

Many thanks! FlavusTitus

Hi! I suggest Googling, although I would not be too optimistic about finding reliable sources to confirm the dubious dates. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Bob Keeshan photo

That photo is still not loading for me, and other photos on other articles are loading fine. Are you sure it's OK? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it loads just fine for me now, as do others. I was annoyed by that bug because I could not see if the new photos I am uploading were better than the ones we already had. Surtsicna (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

DavidWBrooks, do you see it now? The author told me it would not load for him either but I see it clearly. Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope - it's a day later and it's still not loading. I've reverted until you can figure out what is going on. I have no problem with any other photos on wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

DavidWBrooks, I do not understand the logic behind removing the photograph. If it loads for me, it likely loads for other people too. Leaving it in the article does not harm anyone. Removing it because some people have trouble loading it (whereas others do not) does not help anyone. Surtsicna (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

DavidWBrooks, try clearing your browser's cache. Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't loading at home or at work - but now it is loading, just fine. Why? Dunno! The logic of removing it, by the way, is that it replaced a photo that worked fine for everybody. If there had been no photo previously, then perhaps leaving a flawed photo would have made sense. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

DavidWBrooks, I am sorry, I did not realize there was a working photograph in the infobox before I inserted this one. It did not load for me so I assumed the file had been deleted. This was a very strange bug indeed. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that explains why we're butting heads! In 16 years on wikipedia I've never seen a situation where a photo loads for some folks and not for others, so I assumed your file was flawed or the upload failed or something like that, hence my stubborness. Maybe this is a new situation with wikipedia's servers? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I could not see the old photo and you could not see the new! It might be a coincidence, but it seems that it loaded for us in Europe but did not load in North America. The thing is, for some time I could not see any image on Wikipedia and then some appeared while others did not. I am surprised this has not been reported by more people. Surtsicna (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

War of the Spanish Succession

I totally agree Berwick is Berwick but it was a change made by another editor and I try to avoid simply undoing edits if possible :)Robinvp11 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a good way to avoid conflict and headache! Cheers :) Surtsicna (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Let us be serious?

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bosnia and Herzegovina, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Notrium (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Manfred of Sicily

I just noticed your edit with the edit summary "Why should we see that?" The reason people should see that is because the page is pretty long, and it might be a bit difficult for those trying to verify that ref unless they are pointed to the appropriate spot. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, so the Cawley reference is actually Medieval Lands? That website is useful but are you sure it passes as a reliable source? I think it's self-published. Surtsicna (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It isn't published by Cawley, but by the "Foundation for Medieval Genealogy". I have no idea how RS that organization is, but their site has been used enough by other Wikipedia articles such that someone tailor-made a cite template for it (actually just a wrapper around {{cite encyclopedia}}). ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

But Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley contains Template:Self-published inline and Template:Verify credibility. They seem to have been inserted after a discussion at Template talk:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley. Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yikes. That thread is big enough to be used for a doorstop, and apparently there are others like it on the same topic. The discussions all may be rather nuanced, but in the end if perhaps the source isn't strictly verboten, it's certainly at least controversial enough to be rendered undesirable. Thank you for pointing this out to me. That Manfred page is a project I'll be working on for perhaps a month or more, and at some point I will try to replace Cawley with a better source. Tks again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for giving some love to Manfred. Good luck! Surtsicna (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Bailiff (Bailio) v. regent?

If I may ask, if some sources refer to someone as a bailiff and others as a regent, is this a real discrepancy or are the terms overlapping or even interchangeable? Berthold of Hohenberg was the bailiff/regent of Conrad IV after the latter's death... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Lingzhi2. I do not know about Berthold in particular, but the terms are not interchangeable. The bailiff was a high-ranking official and could act as regent when necessary, and a regency was necessary after Conrad's death. It is possible that Berthold held both offices simultaneously. Surtsicna (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• There are other kinds of conflicting info too. I'm just gonna put it all on the board, and you and I can sort it all out when it's done. Thanks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Shootings

Hey Surtsicna. Regarding this, I don't recall editing, tweaking or changing the word, so you might be mistaking me for someone else. Regards - Musicfan122 (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Musicfan122! I am referring to this edit. You changed [[terrorist attack]] into [[terrorism| terrorist attack]]. Surtsicna (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

But, the edit that you mentioned me in was regarding the "australia" link? Musicfan122 (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I forgot to do it in the relevant edit. I probably should have just left a message on your talk page instead. Cheers! Surtsicna (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (pilot)

On 21 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (pilot), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a gay former British prince died fighting on the side of Nazi Germany despite loathing Hitler and the Nazi Party? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (pilot). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (pilot)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Fra Anđeo

What stopped you to remove both claims and both sentences, than ?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? Surtsicna (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

What, "excuse me"? What stopped you in removing both sentences based on source which you found inadequate, but is actually missing completely, and not just my input?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You may drop the thug attitude. This isn't a back alley in a shady neighborhood. The source is adequate. It was verified in a DYK review in 2016. It has since been removed from the website. It did not contain the information you inserted. Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Duke of Hamilton

Hi, the reason I reverted your edit was because your new link was actually linked to a re-direct to the original linked page in the article. Regards Denisarona (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

INUSE

Are you familiar with {{inuse}}? Its intent is to help avoid edit conflicts and let other editors finish their work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course. Please do. Surtsicna (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK

Hi, Surtsicna ... Thanks for including me at Template:Did you know nominations/Fabiana Rosales ... most appreciated ... but I don't engage DYK, and you would probably have a better time getting through the process if you take my name off of the nomination :) :) I had big long fights with DYK for many years over their long-standing COPYVIO, BLP and sourcing issues, and there are probably still editors around who know I am no fan of DYK. I do appreciate that you included me, but think your nomination would be better served if you take me off. Nice work there ! If you need any help getting the nom through, please do ping me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, of course, SandyGeogia. It is unfortunate to see how many DYK articles make it to the Main Page before someone notices that something is off. I think Fabiana Rosales will be fine, though :) And I hope you do not mind my taking out a few direct quotes out of the article. I felt they were a bit too promotional and would possibly raise eyebrows at DYK. Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Got it! I actually had padded up the article with quotes only because it makes me crazy when images overwhelm text, but you've got a good balance now. Good luck, ping me if you need me. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank You

Last weekend was the 6 year Anniversary of your Editor of the Week Award. Glad to see you are still committed to improving the Encyclopedia. ―Buster7 ☎ 19:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Lady Rose Gilman

Hi, Surtsicna. I would like to know if you are interested in reviewing the deletion of this article, made by Justlettersandnumbers. I can't have access to the contents. Thanks in advance. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Lady Louise Windsor

A topic that you had commented on previously has come up again. Specifically, there is a new discussion here about using an Infobox royalty or nobility for Lady Louise Windsor. If you could possibly provide a comment there, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your help! -- Blairall (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Hello, I'm Path slopu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Johann VII, Duke of Mecklenburg have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. PATH SLOPU 12:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD

Hello.

Please read WP:BRD. Note that there is only one R in WP:BRD - so it's not Bold, Revert, Revert back, and then Discuss.

You've been reverted. Don't revert back.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

HandsomeFella, this is a huge WP:BLP issue. We cannot have unsourced claims about living people. WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." For all we know, those names could belong to anyone. It could be a hoax. There could be a serial killer with no connection to the subject. It could be gibberish. It could simply be inaccurate. Without a source, we do not know. This stuff was added en mass without any prior discussion or consensus by a user who has since disappeared from Wikipedia. And with a source - it is painfully trivial. Please do not reintroduce such unsourced claims into a BLP. Surtsicna (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Please self-revert, or I will report you. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I will not. Sue me. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Your GA nomination of Philip III of Navarre

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Philip III of Navarre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Philip III of Navarre

The article Philip III of Navarre you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Philip III of Navarre for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Philip III of Navarre

The article Philip III of Navarre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Philip III of Navarre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

April

... with thanks from QAI

Congrats for that, one of many! - Thank you for patience with some pipe link questions. While I believe that it is really rather minor (but still worth talking about), what about the topic of calling a female subject (never seen for a man) by first name throughout an article? Not minor. It was discussed, and I thought to everybody's understanding, here. Would you perhaps remind the (same) author, or are you tired? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Gerda Arendt! Thank you for your kind words. I intended to bring up the use of the first name but seeing how I was unable to explain something as minor as piping, I doubt I would be able to get my point across. In my original edit summary I also noted that an adult man would never be referred to by his first name alone, but then removed that observation for simplicity. Perhaps I have got off on a wrong foot with the contributor, and you might have more luck. Surtsicna (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Never mind that last sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I laughed so much about that last sentence ;) - Thank you. I hope you enjoy the linked discussion, - I searched for it a while because I didn't remember that it was back in 2017. I used to have good relations to SchroCat in my early years but in 2015 laughed once too much. - I wonder what happened to John who initiated the Butler discussion. Miss him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I too have had good Wiki relations turn sour. I am fairly certain my archenemy is reading this :) Hopefully we'll all get along as well as we can. John's absence is certainly felt. I've recently started a biography of Georg Arends. You might be interested in helping out. His great-granddaughter seems notable too. Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call anybody an enemy, but "I'm fairly certain he's reading this", yes, I'm also certain. When I grew up "disruptive" described something necessary for new paths. - I'm quite busy but will watch your plans. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

See BRD and use the flaming talk page before you start being a pain again - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Using the edit summary when reverting explained edits would make you much more pleasant to cooperate with on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Not being a pain on something so pointless would be a start for you. There are 6 million articles on WO: time to move on to do something useful. - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

That is a thinly veiled way of telling me not to edit your articles. Time to grow up. Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Fabiana Rosales

On 22 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fabiana Rosales, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Venezuelan journalist Fabiana Rosales (pictured) has assumed the role of international ambassador, soliciting support for her husband's opposition party and the crisis in Venezuela? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fabiana Rosales. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fabiana Rosales), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

WOW! But I knew she would score high; she really is pretty. Congratulations! Yoninah (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I was surprised that there was no article about her before. MaoGo and SandyGeorgia contributed a lot. Surtsicna (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations ... wonderful to see she got so many page views, and on her birthday! That young lady is carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders, and none of the sources even skimmed that subject; I hope she stays safe. Congrats again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Bravo! --MaoGo (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

Special day today, the little day, DYK? (more on my talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

And yes, the stats above are pretty amazing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The pretty picture certainly helped! And the little day sounds like something that could help me improve my German. I need that! Surtsicna (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The whole thing is on YouTube, - texts with music are easier to remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Katie Bouman

Hello! Your submission of Katie Bouman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

(cont) Please read WP:BRD

Hi. I heard you were removing ahnentafels from several articles due to BLP issues. I think it would be a great idea if this were made explicitly clear in MOS:BIOGRAPHY and/or WP:BLP. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, the news is spreading? :) It already is explicitly clear in WP:BLP. Surtsicna (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne

You: “94 BYTES REMOVED, 12 HOURS AGO Undid revision 895424029 by Yonian (talk) What's the point? We don't normally do placeholders”

I was following the example of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_British_princes_and_princesses

I believe that the point of placeholders is to balance the appearance of the section and perhaps to make it a little easier to substitute better images when they become available. But I’ll defer to your Wikipedia seniority and accept your revision. Should placeholders also be removed from the example I followed? Yonian (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Yonian! Yes, I believe the placeholders from List of living British princes and princesses should be removed. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Image placeholders. Surtsicna (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Geology of China

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ehud Arye Laniado

Surtsicna, it looks like the QPQ you requested in your DYK review has been provided by the nominator. Can you please stop by to see whether everything needed has been done, or if more needs to be accomplished before you can sign off on the review? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Katie Bouman

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Private citizen

Hi,

You claim private citizen is a notable topic and justifies the red link in Sutton Place. However wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. After giving the dictionary definition, what else is there to say on the subject? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Murgatroyd49. What comes to mind are legal implications, as in Public figure. Does Private citizen not strike you as an encyclopedic topic? Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

No, as I say, once you are past the dictionary definition, what are you left with? Just negatives. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

If it's not a notable topic in its own right (and I do think it is, just as much as Public figure is), then it should redirect to a more general article. Surtsicna (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

If you think it's notable enough for an article, find some sources which support that. I can't find anything beyond some basic definitions of what it is: "A citizen not engaged in public office". It is not the opposite of a public figure, which has no bearing on it. The redlinks are inappropriate. (Hohum ^@) 18:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a relevant wiktionary entry which could be used: private citizen - case 3. "Not in governmental office or employment." (Hohum ^@) 19:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is one. It's 33 pages of discourse on "citizenship, public and private". If being a public figure has no bearing on being a private citizen, it's all the more reason to have an article clarifying it. It would appear to be a common misconception. I am certainly not an expert. Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

That would all go in an article about citizenship - which we already have. You appeared to not know what the term meant, so redlinked it. That is not appropriate. (Hohum ^@) 22:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it would not all go into the article about citizenship because that article is rather long already. You asked for sources proving that this is a notable topic and you got a 33-page-long scholarly treatise. I disagree about the propriety of linking to unfamiliar terms; it's how this encyclopedia grows. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

So prove it and create the stub article. (Hohum ^@) 16:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I have proven enough. You have proven that you are merely opposed to a red link. Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You can't be bothered to make a stub on an article which you think should exist, and say you have found enough source material for. Says it all. (Hohum ^@) 16:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it says that I know the limits of my competences and that I do not feel obligated to do what you not-so-politely request. Surtsicna (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

WOW!!! I knew this was a winner from the word go! Congratulations! Yoninah (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Yoninah! It's such a straightforward hook, but the recognizable last name + fancy title + photograph proved to be a very attractive combination. I did not expect it to beat the gay Nazi British prince though! Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, are my eyes deceiving me? Did this hook really get this many views? Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Archie Mountbatten-Windsor

On 15 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a nine-day-old citizen of the United States, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, is seventh in the line of succession to the British throne? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, in answer to your question above, it looks like a few hundred thousand people did start looking at the page on May 8. But by the time your hook went up on the main page, page views were down to around 16,000 per day. Your DYK on May 15 bumped up page views by 6,000 to 7,000 views, which is still enough to qualify for WP:DYKSTATS. See the formula for determining your DYK page views under WP:DYKSTATS#Rules, point 3. Best, Yoninah (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sebastian Ulick Browne

Hi Surtsicna

I recently came across your entire on Sebastian Ulick Browne and family. Being from the west of Ireland myself and with a keen interest in local history I see you appear to have doughts about his background. I have carried out some research myself into the Browne family, I was led to believe that Sebastians father Ulick Browne was married twice, however I have been unable to find any trace of a marriage certificate for the second marriage and I wonder if you have come across a record of this marriage as it would help fill a gap in my research. Greengrass50 (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Greengrass50. I am sorry, I do not think I can help you. I have only made three edits to that article. Surtsicna (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of ancestry sections

Hello, I see you've been deleting quite a few of these sections. I think such a big deletion "project" really needs a pre-discussion, as would be typical whenever something which was clearly seen as very widely acceptable and interesting is raised as a concern by one editor. I realize of course that some of them have problems, but if I understand correctly you are deleting ones with no identifiable problems that everyone would be likely to agree on? I'll just list some obvious counter arguments to the arguments you are using in edit notes:

• Subjective comments like "excessive" and irrelevant etc. I think it is obvious not everyone will agree with you. For a subjective issue, mass deletions without pre-discussion is not the normal way to work.
• Such pedigrees never appear in published sources? Obviously not true. History books are full of pedigrees. They are helpful for any periods where family inheritances were important.
• Incomplete pedigrees are being deleted for being incomplete. This is obviously NOT a problem? If the whole pedigree is not known then that is how it should be reported? I can't follow this.
• Unsourced. I have sympathy with this and have thought about it over the years (note: I have never made one of these pedigrees, but I often work on medieval subjects etc). To me the situation seems to be that this is a graphic representation of information, and graphic illustrations such as maps don't have the same sourcing rules on Wikipedia. In any case the whole point of a simple pedigree is to be a simple graphic representation, and there is no place to put such notes without defeating the purpose.
• In most cases furthermore, the information can be found the hard way by following the parent articles in Wikipedia itself, so in effect it is a diagram also showing the links between related articles.

I would suggest that the push for sourcing should therefore be within the bodies of those linked-to articles? Deleting these information boxes is not really improving the sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew Lancaster. There has been a discussion at Template talk:Ahnentafel, but I will try to answer your questions here as well. I want to note that I am not the only editor concerned by this template. There has always been an opposition to it. Take a look, for example, at Talk:Louis V of France#Ahnentafel, where Srnec, Ealdgyth and others expressed their disapproval of the ahnentafel addition in 2007, but it was later added anyway. How? Well, this thing just spawns everywhere, without or despite discussion.

• If a five-generation ancestry table (or any other content) is not presented by any author who is an authority on the topic of the article, e.g. in a biography of the subject, then it is not subjective to describe that table (or that content) as excessive and irrelevant.
• No, ahnentafeln (as in Template:Ahnentafel) do not appear in history books or biographies. Genealogy is presented in other ways. Ealdgyth demonstrated this very clearly. Genealogy charts found in published sources include family members who had an impact on the subject's life: his/her predecessor or successor, an aunt who served as regent, an uncle who was a claimant, a cousin who was a rival, a spouse who was a relative; they do not name the subject's entirely irrelevant great-great-grandmother. This means that normally Template:Tree chart would be much more useful if a chart is needed.
• I do not think I have ever deleted an ahnentafel just for being incomplete. I also cannot think of an instance where I deleted a template that had no identifiable problem.
• There is no consensus that ahnentafeln should be exempt from the core WP:V policy. They present information which is not sourced elsewhere in the article (or indeed anywhere on Wikipedia) and thus requires sources as much as any other content. If we are going to claim that Jane of Foo is the great-great-grandmother of John of Foo, we definitely need a source. But if no biographer of John of Foo mentions Jane of Foo in any context, why should we bring her up at all? You are right, there is no easy way to put references in Template:Ahnentafel, and that is its huge downside. Surtsicna (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow... haven't looked at THAT page in a while ... that was quite the bit of research I did. And it's still pretty much valid. Descent charts/relative charts (such as the two graphic charts in William the Conqueror or the line relatives chart in Henry I of England#Family tree appear often in historical works. A pure ahnentafel (a pedigree chart) almost never appears in historical works about people that are not genealogical in nature. (Pedigree charts ARE quite common in works on horses, I'll point out, so the various templates aren't useless). There is a slight increase in ahnentafels in modern biographies of royals - but that's a very small niche compared to the numerous academic biographies that lack such pedigree charts. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the references to these discussions. It sounds like they are not well-known or completed though? I'll make some comments about apparent gaps in the rationales being described.

• Starting with the definitions. Isn't the distinction being made here between "pure ahnentafels" and various other formats a bit artificial and irrelevant here? Technically, I don't think these are ahnentafels, though that is maybe nitpicking, because they contain the same information. But there is the point: Do work of history contain such sourceable information, whether we wish to call it genealogical or prosopographical? Yes they certainly do. And PRESENTATION is something we have complete freedom over and Wikipedia frankly can and and should and does go beyond the formats found in printed media. This type of CONTENT though, IS found in notable and reliable sources?
• Policy point: If the concern is WP:V then I think that raises no issue for the rationale I mentioned? I am saying we could better make sure that articles are sourced, and that these pedigrees (to use the normal term for this shape of diagram) are covering information Wikipedia is sourcing properly in those articles or related articles. If it is not then the first priority should be working on the bad articles? (And hopefully this will not only mean deletions but also adding sources, or tags reminding that we need them.)
• Common sense points: It sounds obvious that if these keep popping up they are interesting to people and to be honest I like them myself. (Hopefully that does not make me bad.) So we can't say they serve no purpose. Secondly, most of the ones I have seen are 90-100% non-controversial. Why would be running around Wikipedia deleting such things when the ARTICLES themselves are so poor?
• Practical point: it is easy to delete un-sourced individuals instead of whole tables.
• Big picture point: I am thinking that there is higher priority work to be done on the typical types of articles involved in these cases. I am also thinking these tables, once that work is done, will be easier to judge and adapt because they should reflect the information in the article and related articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If @Ealdgyth:, @Andrew Lancaster:, and you are interested, I have also deleted an unusually egregrious example where most of the names were not even traceable outside the edit. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Astilbe chinensis

Hello! Your submission of Astilbe chinensis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Astilbe chinensis

On 1 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Astilbe chinensis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite a scientific name referring to its dull leaves, Chinese astilbe (pictured) was celebrated as the most important new hardy perennial by the Royal Horticultural Society in 1902? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Astilbe chinensis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Astilbe chinensis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

E2's full name

It's her full name as shown on the marriage certificate which is given as a reference. The name given on her marriage certificate is her legal name. You have not provided any reference for your assertions and your reverts are out of line. Oska (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not see the change in the infobox. For more than a decade no family name had been given. Members of the royal family use various last names. They sign some documents with no last name (e.g. the recent birth certificates). I am not sure how authoritative one document is. Surtsicna (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's an additional reference from the official Royal UK website and it directly contradicts your assertion that she has no surname.

In 1917, there was a radical change, when George V specifically adopted Windsor, not only as the name of the 'House' or dynasty, but also as the surname of his family. The family name was changed as a result of anti-German feeling during the First World War, and the name Windsor was adopted after the Castle of the same name.

https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name

Oska (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reversing your changes. Oska (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The "Emperor" or "emperor"?

Hi Surtsicna, I get your point that if we consider "emperor emeritus" being merely a job title it then should be written in lower case according MOS:JOBTITLES. But why are royal titles like "Emperor of Japan" (at e.g. the websites of Akihito or Naruhito) or "Queen of the United Kingdom" (at for example the site Elizabeth II) written with a capital letter? They are imperial or royal titles, but Emperor Emeritus also (the latter is not a job title). Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. D. E. Mophon! The answer to your question, if I understand it correctly, is at MOS:JOBTITLES and I do not think I could phrase it better. Surtsicna (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover

Did you read the source? It provides Ernest Augustus' ancestry, unless you're claiming that he and his siblings did not have the same ancestry. Also, articles about kings normally have their ancestry, because ancestry is important for someone who inherits a title; they were monarchs or high nobles, not obscure people like you said. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No, 208.95.51.53, I am claiming that the source does not mention Ernest Augustus at all, and it does not. Therefore it cannot be used as the source for the ancestry of the said Ernest Augustus. Please see WP:SYNTHESIS. Also, Ernest Augustus's descent from the obscure Princess Christiane Emilie of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen had nothing to do with his inheritance nor any part of his life, which is why she is not mentioned by any of his biographers. I am quite sure that if she (and others) were important, academics who made it their career to research the life of Ernest Augustus would mention her. Surtsicna (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahnentafel(s)

I have noticed you trimming them down and tagging them as unsourced. Why not just remove them completely? Unless there is some reasoning for mentioning a specific ancestor(inheritance, etc), why have them at all? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Kansas Bear. I do remove them completely and immediately when they are unsourced content in a BLP, or after they have been tagged as unsourced for a while, or if they are an intolerable eyesore (e.g. half-fictional or the subject predates the invention of the ahnentafel format). I try to cause as little fuss as possible by generally making them only a bit less absurd than they inherently are. Many people have become accustomed to this content on Wikipedia despite the fact that ahnentafeln never appear in published biographies. I suppose you refrain from removing them completely for the same reason. Surtsicna (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I had never really given ahnentafels any thought. They really do not lend anything to articles as far as I can tell. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Kansas Bear. Virtually nobody gives them any thought, and so they keep spreading, invading even articles about TV people, actors, farmers, and politicians. You may be interested in the discussion we are having at Template talk:Ahnentafel#Requests for comments (RfC). Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Pope or pope

I notice you are changing Pope to pope. Do you have any Wikipedia rule that says it should be lower case? I'm not saying its wrong. Editor2020 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

(tps) To my knowledge, it's Pope (Professor, King, Duke ...) when you say Pope Franciscus (as part of a name), but pope when you say "a pope" or "the pope", - there must be a rule but I am no rule person, I go by trial and error, and looking at examples. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Editor2020. Yes, Gerda Arendt, is right; take a look at MOS:JOBTITLES. Surtsicna (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!! Editor2020 (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Compromise?

I used Prince because I based myself on a famous book on Charles' rule in the Habsburg Netherlands, which is "Charles Quint, Prince des Pay-Bas" by de Boom. The title "prince" is the general title given to dukes, counts etc. It's the same terminology used when talking about "Protestant princes" or "Catholic princes". In his autobiography Charles V says "Lord" but that term is also commonly rendered as Prince.

But i've now rendered it as "ruling prince" and redirected it to "Prince#Prince as generic for ruler where it's explained what it was both in HRE and elsewhere (you are right to say it was in and out the holy roman empire). I hope this can work as a compromise. I had "Prince" written that way to distinguish from the non-ruling title of Prince. "ruling prince (minuscule)" is technically correct and can satisfy both, i think. I have eliminated Duke of Burgundy as you suggested because it was the titular title.

Barjimoa (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Barjimoa. Yes, "prince" is better than "Prince", I think. I still do not understand why the plain and clear "ruler" does not work. It is commonly used in English language literature, whereas "prince" is unheard of in any context other than the Orange-Nassau princes of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Surtsicna (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

primarily because the books on Charles V and the history textbooks use "prince" as generic for the rulers below King and Emperor. To clarify that that area was not a kingdom. Barjimoa (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Do English-language books about Charles V call him prince of the Netherlands, Barjimoa? I am having trouble finding any. As far as I can tell, in English-language literature, he (like other Habsburgs) is commonly described as ruler of the Netherlands. Surtsicna (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes (always in "that sense" like the literature from the low countries)

Kenneth Setton for example: https://books.google.it/books?id=XN51y209fR8C&pg=PA468&dq=%22Charles+V+prince+of+the+netherlands%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi49KntmbTjAhUjuqQKHdyJDQoQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=%22Charles%20V%20prince%20of%20the%20netherlands%22&f=false.

Another example is William Robertson in his "History of the reign of Charles V".

but i'm fine with ruling prince now, it has both what you and I say.

Barjimoa (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Setton is a good example. (The 18th century Robertson not so much haha!) I still think the readers would benefit from the simpler, clearer, and more common "ruler of the Netherlands", but "prince of the Netherlands" is at least not Wikipedia's creation as I had feared. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

edit war

Please read wp:editwar and wp:consensus. You have been undone now by two edds, it is not time to make the case at the talk page, and not to revert again.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Reversions

Why do these have to be mentioned in academic biographies of the subjects to be useful/interesting information? Endymion.12 (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Because otherwise what is useful and interesting is decided on a whim of editors. Inclusion into published, peer-reviewed, academic biographies is the only objective criterion for inclusion into Wikipedia biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That entries for "ancestry" sections in Wikipedia biographies must be based on discussion in biographies (of any kind) is not a policy requirement. Happily though, policy is not determined by the "whim of editors" bold enough to invent inclusion criteria on-the-spot. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is a policy requirement, and no, this criterion has not been invented on the spot. See WP:PROPORTION. Being "interesting" to an editor is not (and has never been) an inclusion criterion; fortunately, because it would be impossible to lead a discussion based on I like it/I do not like it arguments. If people who spent years researching the subject before publishing a comprehensive biography do not find it "useful/interesting" to mention all of the subject's great-great-grandparents, then it surely isn't useful or interesting enough to be included in a general encyclopedia biography. Surtsicna (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Brunel

Discuss this at Talk: first and see if other editors support a consensus to remove this (no evidence for such so far). Otherwise you're just edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)