Jump to content

User talk:The Emperor's New Spy/Archive 11

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

RE

Ino, there's very little to do at the moment...your welcome to help me search for anymore info on Joan, Heiress of Navarre, I'd been aware of her existance for a while but until checking medieval lands I didn't realise that she was formally made heir and was even regent of Navarre for a time

Yes alot of them were unimportant many of them either died in their early twenties or became nuns they did nothing of any historical importance, only the ones who married and had children or were regents during the time of wars were important, I'll look over some of them see if they could be expanded--David (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg

I continue to support your inclusion of a succession box in the Polyxena article because I do not object to user boxes so long as they don't needlessly extend articles by repeating information thrice. But I am confused by your use of this one. It seems to say that Polyxena lived in the 1800s, that she is a member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, and to describe that dynasty as a cadet branch of the House of Lorraine. So far as I know, none of this is factual: Maria Theresa's husband was the most senior of the Lorraines, and only the Guise lines were junior relative to that couple's descendants. Please clarify? FactStraight (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have protected Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg and blocked a couple of accounts for violation of the 3RR rule.

  • 1: 14:44, 30 October 2010 (diff | hist) Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg ‎
  • -: 17:34, 30 October 2010 (diff | hist) Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg ‎
  • -: 17:40, 30 October 2010 (diff | hist) Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg ‎ (→See also)
  • 2: 20:20, 30 October 2010 (diff | hist) Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg
  • 3: 05:58, 31 October 2010 (diff | hist) Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg ‎ (Please LouisPhilippeCharles stop doing this. I don't want to fight with you but I going to stand firm on this issue. There has always been a succession box on this page until YOU removed it.)
  • 4: 17:12, 31 October 2010 (diff | hist) Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg

You may not have read WP:3RR recently but there is a clause in it that says: "of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." (my emphasis) which can be a "gotcha" as this means that your last edit could be seen as a revert just outside the 24 hour period. However it seems to me that you were trying to keep to the spirit of 3RR (despite some flagrant breaches of it by others), and so I do not intend to block you account. This explanation is put here both to inform you of the decision and to explain to other interested parties how I came to my decision.

I suggest that, if in future you have similar problems with an editor reverting against several other editors, rather than sailing close to the wind, report it to WP:3RR or WP:ANI. -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Never knew about that rule. But I was just trying to readd the succession box that LouisPhilippeCharles had remove few months ago. Do you know where I can discuss this? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you start a new section on Talk:Polyxena_of_Hesse-Rotenburg stating that you intend to reinstate it asking why it was removed. If none are forth coming then reinstate it. -- PBS (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dauphine of France

I have moved Dauphine and First Princess of France back to Dauphine of France for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Template - Portuguese house of B.

Hello Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, I'm short of time just now. Can I get back to you on this. And can we agree not to do anything about the template meanwhile? I think we probably can get rid of the template alltoghether... Let's discuss this latter on. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy! Sorry, I completely forgot about this issue. I'm okay with the changes you made. Have you checked that they do not mess up the articles' formating (in fact that was the reason for my previous reversal...)? The Ogre (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
No I moved them all to the bottoms of the articles. Not absolutely sure if I got everyone last one though.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Isabella, Countess of Foix

Hi I've just finish my article on Isabella, Countess of Foix, I was wondering if you'd put the succession boxes in for me please? Thank you--David (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(Princess) Henrietta (Anne) of England

I would appreciate your opinion about the proper name of (Princess) Henrietta (Anne) of England, see Talk:Princess Henrietta of England JdH (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Mécia Lopes de Haro

I know very little on her, I may expand her later in the week, I believe you wish to translate her portuguese article? --David (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


I found an article in an on-line journal that deals, in part, with Mecia. You may want to draw on it to fill out the current stub (I currently lack the time).

http://www.revistamirabilia.com/Numeros/Num3/artigos/art8.htm

Agricolae (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've started the translation but from Spanish as it was easier (Portuguese didn't come out right, didn't make sense) I also find the Spanish hard as well I've missed out key information I'm sure, since I couldn't understand the English translation, could somebody take over?--David (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It's okay David. It's look better than before.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll create the article on Sunday, busy week before it--David (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry

Hey, thanks for adding to the ancestry on Prince Joseph of Monaco and his bro =] I was worried it would not look very full haha LPC (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Conversion?

I made a comment at Talk:Agnes of France, Byzantine Empress -- I hope you'll comment too. Andrew Dalby 16:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Brazilian Saxe-Coburgs

Hi QEIILS, I'm not very familiar with that particular line of succession, but I'll do a little digging and see what I can come up with to answer your questions (because I'm curious too!) Have you considered putting it on Line of succession to the Brazilian throne's talkpage, where one of those editors could respond? Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for heping me with editing of infoboxes about royaty.--Mychele (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply

As far as I understand, it is not against the rules of wikipedia to redirect consorts to the articles of their husbands. It is also alowed to make categories to such redirected articles. I have noticed that this is not unusual in wikipedia. These articles will no doubt be created eventually. You can of course remove the categories of these redirects if you have any information that this is against the rules and policy of wikipedia, but I see no reason to do so. I do hope there will be no hostilities over this. My best greetings to you. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No hostilities. Did it sound hostile? Just didn't like how they only led to their husband's articles.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Template

It is very good, I would stick to the idea of breaking it up when you put it in articles (depending of the generation of which the person in question comes from) as you saw with the Portuguese princesses putting the entire template in the article can make it look strange--David (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine (1823–1888)

Why did you move Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine to Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine (1823–1888)? Is there another prince with this name? Dates in article titles look bad and can be confusing when doing a search, unless they're needed for disambiguation. Ruby2010 (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they both look great. I'm a huge advocate of breaking up large dynasties in templates (like you did with sweyn2, harald3 etc). So keep up the good work! Your templates always turn out amazing. Ruby2010 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Would you consider working on Template:House of Hohenzollern (Prussia) next? There are so many members of that family that aren't included in that template because they're the grandson or great grandson of a monarch. (For instance Prince Frederick of Prussia (1794–1863) and Prince Friedrich Karl of Prussia (1828–1885). Ruby2010 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm...don't all of the Prussian monarchs use this: Ruby2010 (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, is this what you meant? [1] Ruby2010 (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
K I'll do the rest of the family like I did with Louis Charles. Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
That's what I was concerned about, and is why I've only done two or three names. I'll wait til your done. Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Much, much better! [2] Thanks again, Ruby2010 (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Waroch

Hi,

I have modified this article as you can see, I replace the term French by Breton. At this period, the term "French" can't be employed, Waroch was a breton rule and Bro-Erec was a part of the primitive Brittany. Brittany became a part of France from 1532 only, not before, so the term "French" is unappropriated ;)

Kromar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kromar (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Magdalen

Just to explain what I was up to: Magdalen is an established English exonym for Swedish Magdalena (as I thought you might know?). So I fail to see the benefit of your subsequent move and particularly of your edit summary comment. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems the most common form is Magdalena or Magdalene never Magdalen. I simiply moved it to Christina Magdalena, but it can be Christine Magdalene or any combination of those, plus she was as German as she was Swedish, so I don't understand your arguement. We don't always use the "established English exonyms", do we call "Maria" or "Marie" by their established established English exonym of Mary?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Your user name

Hello! I noticed that your username (Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. Please see WP:REALNAME. I do not feel the name of any real living person should be used in anybody's user name under any circumstances, unless your really are that person (or her Little Spy) and choose to edit in your own name. "Do not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that well-known person or you make it clear that you are not." Even though most WP users/readers certainly, in my opinion and yours too I'm sure, would realize that you are not the real person in this case, we cannot be sure that that is true for everyone, So you should not have chosen that user name from the beginning, I sincerely feel, and you need to change it a.s.a.p.. Sorry about this template's text (which I cannot change) treating you as a new user. I know how much good you have done on en.WP for a long time. The higher your profile, however, the more inappropriate is it to include a real living person's name in your user name. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you are mainly doing this out of spite, but I'll change it soon since I was going to change my name for while now.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are not able to see my good faith in this. Reacted the very first time I saw your user name, but just got around to finally commenting now, as our paths cross more and more due to your recent involvement with Scandinavian royalty, most great, a few things not too great. I have friends who are personal friends of the Queen so maybe that's why. No offense intended, believe me! I'm glad you have planned a change anyway. Why not "Royalty's Little Helper"? Or "... Big Helper?"SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
How long is "soon", that is how long would you like to have to make the change? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you stop badgering me? If I say I will, I will.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not badgering you by asking an important question relevant to the basic rules for users at English Wikipedia. You should never have adopted this user name, have used it much too long already, and you should take this seriously; in any case, please stop making such accusations as that! And please change your user name - NOW (word stricken not underlined) without further delay! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Dude take a chill pill. I never accussed you of anything, and I'm tried but it's been denied.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
This username does not violate the username policy in any way, shape, or form. If you (SergeWoodzing) still have a problem with it, feel free to bring it up at WP:RFC/NAME. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Since you apparently haven't read the policy, or my quote from it above, I am repeating it here so it can't be missed this time:
  • Do not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that well-known person or you make it clear that you are not. Picking one of the most well-known people in the world (to pose as that person's "Little Spy") hardly exempts one from that basic rule. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Come off it. There's nothing wrong with his username, as he follows both letter and intent of the Username policy. He is not impersonating Queen Elizabeth II, and the "'s little spy" appellation is not an attempt to manipulate the policy. And saying that Nihonjoe, who is a bureaucrat, hasn't read the username policy is very much bad faith. Before you run off to file a request at WP:RFC/NAME, however, I would suggest you read WP:RFC/NAME#Nissae Isen's Man - a report about a username which is similar to this one - and note the responses there. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 08:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Nissae Isen? Who's that? Can't compare in any case with letting many users wonder whether or not this one might be editing from Buckingham Palace. Lots of people might wonder. I know how (uninitiated) people often react. In case you don't, watch more reality television and quiz shows!. Have a bit of empathy with common man and woman! I'm sorry you object my questioning whether or not y'all have read the policy I repeated verbatim in bold letters above. These replies (on the "Litte Spy's" behalf?) would lead anyone to believe that none of you have read it, or that you have read it and then ignored it completely. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Nihonjoe has read the policy. (He'd have to, as he has the power to rename accounts.) I have read the policy. (I clerk WP:CHU and did a lot of username blocks as an administrator.) Neither of us, nor Drmies (a very regular editor) see how this name violates the letter or the spirit of WP:U. Cease the insulting sarcasm; it's starting to look like trolling. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 03:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This user does a huge amount of good work on English WP's royalty articles. It is really a shame that his/her user name rubs so many of us the wrong way, in addition to being a clear breach of policy. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That personal attack about "insulting sarcasm" and "trolling" was quite unwarranted to someone who is merely giving an honest opinion on how I interpret the guideline and the way I know some people react to this user name. There is no sarcasm, only sincerity, in any of my comments above. OK, it looks like I'm wrong then, if you two are WP's experts. No need to attack me personally though. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. Your comment made on 23:15 2010-17-12, about watching more reality and game shows is insulting sarcasm. It's not a personal attack.
  2. I said that your posts were looking like trolling. Again, not a personal attack. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 10:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Reality talk shows are a great place to get a realistic opinion about how lots of regular people react to things, and a point I was trying to make about how many are likely to react to this user name and the guideline as quoted above - is this person really a representative of the Queen? Gee, I wonder… - it was sincerely meant and not meant as sarcasm at all. Sorry you took it that way. An unwarranted accusation of "trolling" is always a personal attack, in my opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies is now a Feature article nominee

Hi! Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies has been nominated as possible Featured article. She was an Italian princess and the wife of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. If're interested on reviewing and voting in favor or not of it, please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Emperor%27s_New_Spy/Archive_11&oldid=1190137537"