User talk:Yopie/Archives

Zaolzie

Hi, I have reverted your recent edit to Zaolzie, because it seemed the arguments used are difficult to understand. If you feel your edit was right, please feel free to explain it further and please try to support it with sources. Thanks. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 23:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Any attempts to implement nationalist Czech views and deleting/altering sourced and cited information will be reverted. Also if you will continue to do this you can be blocked. - Darwinek 22:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I will leave it then but scratched, so readers can realize it is no longer valid. Btw do you speak Czech? I suppose you do. I bet you are from Ostrava or some place near/in Silesia. I also suppose you are proud nationalist and doesn't like minorities, especially my kind. Am I right? - Darwinek 12:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Darwinek, I´m happy, that we can talk. Yes I can speak Czech, but I´m not from Ostrava and I´m no nationalist. My mother is Polish orgin herbu Abdank, my wife is Slovak speaking, but from very old Moravian family and thus I´m family connected with Piastids and other dukes in Silesia. My family roots are Czech, Polish, German (Bayern, not Silesia), Slovak and Hungarian. So, for me is virtually impossible to be against any minority. I only dont like in encyclopedia words as "agression", "invasion" etc. for me, as lawyer is subjective. For example, in POLISH Wiky is history of Těšín/Cieszyn more objective than in En ("Czeski Cieszyn powstał w 1920 roku w wyniku podziału dawnego Księstwa Cieszyńskiego pomiędzy Polskę i Czechosłowację." - nothing about "invasion" etc.) My opinion is, that we can translate Polish article in En a thus you must agree that is objective. Best regards Yopie 14:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am happy you are not a nationalist. Yes, 1920 division wasn't decided by some military means but by politicians and diplomats. This division was, as you know, controversial and led to the events of 1938. But on 23 January 1919 Czech side really did kind of invasion thus breaking a treaty signed with Polish part in November 1918. You know when you take three armed divisions and drive through the whole Cieszyn Silesia to the Wisła River near Skoczów, it is an invasion (small, but still it is). Argument of taking "our lands" according to "our Historické státní právo" is one-sided as was the Polish argument of taking "our lands" in 1938 and the similar German Sudetenland argument. Point is that I am researching this issue now more deeply as I live there and doing kind of essay at my university. All related articles should look better after few weeks. Still, in my opinion invaded looks maybe better than attacked, which is an option too. You know we have here articles like French invasion of Russia or Invasion of Poland (1939) so in my opinion it isn't problem. And you can see my additions to Zaolzie-related articles are sourced and properly cited. Maybe some sentence like "Czech side argued that..." could be added but again sourced and cited as WP:CITE is very important rule here. - Darwinek 17:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard Watts

Dear Sir

Why did you remove parts of article on Zaolzie, based on the book by Richard Watts? What was the reason for destroying somebody else's work? Watt's book has been written in an objective matter, he is not Polish, he is American and I see no reason for not trusting him.

If you do not like the way he described history, come up with your own sources. Destruction leads to nothing good Tymek 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Zaolzie

Thanks for your support! Highly appreciated in a difficult situation when a group of friends get together and decide to use Wikipedia for their national agenda.--Xixaxu 17:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:GA/R archives

Please don't comment on archived discussions at WP:GA/R. If you feel it is necessary, then renominate the article for review. This article had been given more than enough time for additional comment. Thank you. IvoShandor 15:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Hi! Thanks for the support on Silesia (edit talk links history).
FYI-1,
FYI2] (repeat request for discourse on POV charges),
You really ought to sign on talk pages though! <LOL> // FrankB 01:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Duchy of Silesia

Why remove Polish name? I am all for adding Czech name to the series, but 'the more the merrier'. Also, see Duchy of Opava, it's edit history and related history at Duchies of Silesia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-orders

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Pseudo-orders, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion: might it not be better to rename the article and category "Self-styled orders" or something like that? Placing orders in the category will of course be very contentious, so I think it is important that the criteria for designating an order as "self-styled" be clear and objective so that they can be defended. Choess (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pseudo-orders

An editor has nominated Pseudo-orders, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudo-orders and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Grumpy Bear Award

From you I assume, that your "humour" is offensive for me. Yopie 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to offend, was meant to be humorous, assume WP:Good faith, withdrew "award". --Frank Ness (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

Telling me to use the sandbox without specifying a topic I edited isn't very helpful Yopie, either you're in a rush or just confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfedup (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Knights Templar in Scotland

Thank you for experimenting with the deleted WP:AfD tag on Knights Templar in Scotland. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. The debate has been closed and your reverted WP:AfD tag simply lead to the archived discussion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do.--Frank Ness (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User deleting part of own talk page

Yopie (talk) you cannot delete others' comments from your talk page. It is considered Wikipedia vandalism. This is the 2nd revert.

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Yopie, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. --Kyndinos (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not vandalism. Vandalism is adding of offensive pictures. Yopie 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit yesterday, reverted twice, removed all the sections from "8. Your recent edits" to "11. Knights Templar in Scotland". This looks like more than a reaction to a picture. If you found the cartoon of the bear offensive (why?) and preferred it removed, (most would take it as good humor) a note on the editor's page would have been sufficient, as he removed it in response to your comment on this page. You might consider removing your comment "...your behavior is now ugly..." from his? --Sannhet (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I see you removed the "ugly" comment. Good WP:Wikiquette. --Sannhet (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tesin

Hi, please see this [1], I agree with Darwinek. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

But this is not opinion of community. This Polish map is POV. Old map is better NPOV. Yopie 21:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Czech Republic, a project dedicated to building and maintaining a large and neutral database of Czech Republic-related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name here.

≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Czech Republic!

Hi, and welcome to the Czech Republic WikiProject!

• We are the project collecting, improving and maintaining articles related to the Czech Republic, Czechoslovakia, medieval Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia and Samo's Empire
• Please feel free to add the membership userbox to your userpage {{User WikiProject Czech Republic}}
• If you spot an article within the scope of our project please add our tag {{WikiProject Czech Republic}} to its talk page
• In case you have any questions use our project's talk page
• We wish you happy editing !
• ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fresco dragon

It is worth noting that the dragon motif continues within the villa as well. Gaea depicted with a dragon is not known of anywhere else- it is a very uncommon attribute for the goddess- poetically chosen to refernece the family as all the other frescoes in the villa do as well- including family pets, and pursuits of the members etc. I am trying to include as much cited info referencing the dragon as possible. Maybe you can also help me with the Duke of Norfolk- I see him listed as a member in more than one source- but the dates are off (which Duke of Norfolk?). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.142.236.121 (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your work looks as original research W:OR and this is forbidden. Gaea with dragon is interesting mystery, but there is not direct reference to Order of Dragon, and thus is better and move your research in article about this villa. Yopie 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Spretti source says in 1432, Francesco Barbaro was initiated into the Order. Zorzi source talks about Sigismund bestowing the rights or Sigismund's imperial eagle and the other heraldic emblems carved on the villa. The third link talks about how a "puzzling' dragon attribute is used with the Diety of earth, it is not a known attribute known for her in any other painting. They are perfectly valid , and none of them is from original research. I added Vlad's' use of a dragon on his arms as relevant, as well as other references of dragons in other ways as equally relevant, all from sourced material. Vladd's arms don't have the symbol of the Order of the Dragon on them- just a dragon- that we beleive refences the dragon of the order. I was very careful about searching every point of this article- and only including information that is relevent and correct. The article is perfecly fine and accurate- compare to the mess I found talking about Zulu material and stupid pop culture references. My work is accurate, correct, verifiable and approriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.142.236.121 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please - stop edit war

Please - stop edit war. Czech Silesia is region in Czech Republic, you write this category to arcicle Czech Silesia. LUCPOL (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Czech Silesia IS region in Czech republic, but Silesia (whole) WAS part of Czech lands from 1335 till 1740, and thus is Czech HISTORICAL region. Yopie 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe. Czech Republic is historical region in Germany (example 1390 etc), you write Category:Historical Germany Regions to Czech ;) LUCPOL (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You behave as Czech nationalist

You behave as Czech nationalist. You have to finish such working in Wikipedia. LUCPOL (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Be civil, assume good faith, and no personal attacks. Yopie 18:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

z Vlasime

Hello !

? why is citation needed ? - see below

Z Vlašimi is a Bohemian family name of several ancient knights and nobles, with history going back to the end of the 8th Century[citation needed].

in the first reference document listed - see below

(encyklopedie Seznam) z Vlašimě, Ottova encyklopedie, 1908, <http://encyklopedie.seznam.cz/heslo/352356-z-vlasime (encyklopedie Seznam)>. Retrieved on 2 June 2008 (Czech)

it is clear on line 2 that from 8th century - see below

V českých dějinách připomínají se pánové z [z Vlašimě] koncem stol. XIII.

Is their more information that is needed other than the formal documentaion in encyklopedie Seznam?

Web page records from the village of Vlasim also show 8th century on some docments and the history of rodu z Vlasime is listed under rodu Vlastislaviců with Coat of Arms of Orlice in many Czech documents..

Anyway .. what do want me to do ??

Please let me know .. thanks !Vlasime (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Vlasime, "XIII" means 13, not 8. Please, see article about Roman numerals. Web page of town Vlasim http://www.mesto-vlasim.info/historie-zamku.php cite too 13th century. Please, at first, learn roman numerals and good english. Yopie 09:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In Czech: Pokud rozumíte česky, doporučil bych Vám nejdříve napsat heslo o pánech z Vlašimi na českou wiki, kde by došlo k rychlému odfiltrování takovýchto chyb a pak nebude problém celý článek přeložit do AJ. Yopie 12:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again ... WOW, I was wrong and I'm truly sorry ! .. I looked at my computer print out of the document and it looked like VIII. It is good that there are others that help out new people on Wikipedia. Side note - I see you also collect coins .. so do I. thanks again ! Vlasime (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Vlasime

Hello !

Who are you ? please send me an e- mail tj@jankovsky.net

Why do you keep adding things to my family's history page ? I do not agree with your changes .. you do not know the history so why comment ? I'm trying to add something of value to WIKIPEDIA. but you are making it hard to do .. why are you doing that ???

please respond .. tj Vlasime (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear colleague,

you are not owner of articles in wiki and man, who don't know roman numerals, cannot be historian. Please, at first, read help of Wiki, about style, citations, references etc. at second, do it again. Sorry, but your work is poorly written, and you clearly don't understand principles of Wiki, as interwiki, references, no ownership of articles etc.

Hello ! Are you a Historian ? Is WIKIPEDIA only for historians? As I understood it is open to the public. I was a Math major, very high IQ, Director of IT for McDonald's, but retired at age 56 as a multi-million dollar coin dealer, even published a coin reference book. Who are you ? Why do you say it is poorly written? It is not very professional to criticize and say "poorly written". Your statement above as many mistakes as such it is "poorly written" also !

Now that I'm done with those comments; as I said before, z Vlasime should not be merged. Go check some history books. Z Vlasime covers several families. If you have something positive to add then please make specific suggestions to me. I'm just trying to contribute. If your help is postive then I will try to improve.

Take care ! Vlasime (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Vlasime,

read help. I don't know, why I must make suggestions to you? Please, enlighten me, maybe is here some rule, about ownership of articles. Wait, yes, here. But, there is: "Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have contributed to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all others. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia."

Please, read it again. About me, look here .--Yopie 23:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the reply.

Your current comments appeared to be more positive.

I had concerns about you previous comments. "Do not know Roman Numerals". I do know them. The 8th century was based upon historical reference to z Vlasim, rodu Vlastislaviců, from several sources such as the history of village of Vlasim before the year 800 and the tribe Lucanu from the 8th and 9th centuries. But I did not want to expand this historical reference area or argue with you so I agreed it should be the 13th Century. So I let your negative "Do not know Roman Numerals" criticism pass by.

The subject z Vlasim itself could be expanded rodu Vlastislaviců / Janoviců but it should not be merged with Jankovsky z Vlasime. I plan to remove this reference. Correction of errors made by others is not Vandalism.

However the comment "Does not know English" was completely unjustified. Besides a BS in Mathematics also a MBA. Such criticism should not be allowed, in particular from one whose native language is not English. Similarly for your statement "Poorly Written". This is a phrase that WIKIPEDIA says "you should never use". I do not know Czech spelling as such some of the changes you have made are positive . So thanks !

I do not agree with your ongoing requests for "Citation" Please get a copy of Bolom's documentation and read it. Also read history of Erb Orlice and the village of Vlasim. Nejstarší známí majitelé byli páni z Vlašimi, jimž panství patřilo do roku 1363. Jméno Vlašim pravděpodobně vzniklo ze jména Vlastislav, příslušníka rodu Vlastislaviců. Měli v erbu přemyslovskou orlici, jak ji známe z vyobrazení sv. Václava. Po nich se během 650 let vystřídalo 12 rodů.

Final note on WIKIPEDIA.. After reviewing WIKIPEDIA it appears that it is not a true book, encyclopedia or place where an author can make a contribution instead it appears to me as more of a Blog or format for those who want to play on the computer. I plan to see what occurs prior to adding more information or deleting what I have entered so far. The family's history it is well documented and I do not want it distorted on WIKIPEDIA.

I did find your page interesting. I so like cigars and collect coins. You can find out information on my coins on Google: just type in Jankovsky Coins or AOEDAD ( Authority on Exonumia ).

Vlasime (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Order of St Anthony

The addition of "Henri de Montfort" appears to be untrue. The dates are chronologically improbable and it contradicts other sources. I've just reverted those additions out of the articles entirely. Choess (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you, for me looks improbable. --Yopie 09:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullet points?

Yopie, on talk pages, we use (:) these, not bullet points, as explained in WP:TP. This is to make the division between comments clear. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 12:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullets are not forbidden, but editing of others talk is. See [page guidelines]. --Yopie 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong - editing other's comments isn't forbidden - under certain circumstances. I have not changed the words, even though you have claimed that I have. Bullets are not forbidden, but they are not used, this is the first time I have ever seen anyone use bullet points on a standard talk page. Bullets make the page more difficult to read and in general are completely unnecessary. As far as layout is concerned, bullets are completely useless.

Read WP:TP, particularly the formatting section. I am now going to change the micronation talk page one last time, you can change it back if you want. I am not going to start an edit war over bullet points, I have already explained why Wikipedia users don't use them. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation from [page guidelines]: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.". --Yopie 18:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please point out where I struck out your comments? You have still failed to explain how I edited your words, and now you say that I struck them out? So please explain to me why anybody would strike out words which they changed to favor their argument, and how bullet points are "words".

As I said, I'm not going to change it back, even though I have explained several times why bullet points aren't used. This is my last comment on the matter. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the rules

Reading the history of the edits of the Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha it seemed to me you had used the Twinkle tool in a wrongful way, vandalism according to Wikipedia definition seems to be something different than the edit war you were involved in. But I respect what you are saying, perhaps it would have been better to notify you first. I assumed you thought it was ok to use Twinkle like that. I don't know what you have against the references to the Spanish archives etc, nor why you don't follow the structure of the article proposed by an Admin 30 May. If you are neutral as you say, why don't you want both sides of the story to be told? I agree the books you have listed should be included, but so should also the references to source documents.StevenB (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Steven, answer is simply. 1. I don't use Twinkle (BTW using Twinkle is not vandalism). 2. About "MOC" - I don't know any "Admin"s proposition 30 May. So, I cannot answer. MOC is fraud and hoax, and this is attested by many scholars and authorities. There can be view by members of this "order", but not in way you made. --Yopie 17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and found this "On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred." So if it is wrong of me to do so, please explain.

Secondly, on the Order of the Collar history page, it says you have used Twinkle to revise other edits. I am not saying this is true, only that this is what is recorded on that page, please check for yourself and see. If this is not correct, perhaps there is some technical mistake and you should check this with Wikipedia management? If you read the Discussion page of the Order of the Collar, there is indeed a "Proposal" dated 31 May that says "I believe that we can strike a balance, an article that contains the following content:

• The present order, it's work, statute and divisions. It does exist and therefore it should be on Wikipedia
• The legends of the origin.
• The documented origin
• The revival in 1853
• The order as a family- or dynastic order op the House of Paterno (with reference to the doubts about the Napolitan recognition)
• The expansion of the order under the rule of the present Grand-Master
• The discussion about the status of this order.

The views pro- and contra. Then everyone can make up his own mind. 15:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)"

This seems to me to be an Admin's proposal, is it not?

I agree that the view of the scholars you have added should be included, but it cannot be denied that other scholars have other opinions (such as the Professors quoted etc). Surely their opinions have the same right to be included, if the article is to be neutral? As the Admin proposed above, why not include all "views pro and contra" and "then everyone can make up their own mind"? What is so wrong with that? StevenB (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• First, this not "Admin´s" proposal, this is only unsigned suggestion. Second, yes, there can be both views, but in neutral way, not in way you edited. --Yopie 09:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

List of micronations

Hi Yopie. Please see the comments on the above talk page, thanks. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I left the reliable sources, and I will use the templates on them shortly. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yopie, Can you please tell me why you took down the listing for the Principality of Dubeldeka in Micronations. A link to a local news article was included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.85.118 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTE, Principality of Dubelka fails in notability. --Yopie 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me how it can fulfil your criteria for notable. There is a news article, it has been seen on a local Channel 9 news article in Australia and reported to me. I fail to see how this is less notable than many of the others listed in the same section. Please explain. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.85.118 (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources--Yopie 18:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yopie: I have now scanned two news articles that were faxed to me from Dubeldeka, an envelope with coat of arms, and a passport from Dubeldeka. What do I do with this information to assist with its listing in the micronation section. You can see the scans in this photoalbum. Please let me know if Dubeldeka can be left as an entry. Thank you

http://s719.photobucket.com/albums/ww198/wikispecial/

140.247.85.118 (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wirtland

Hi Yopie,

Thanks for your message ("We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising")

I represent Wirtland, a web-based country founded last year (www.wirtland.com). I received several inquiries from our citizens - we have over 500 citizens now - on why Wirtland is not featured in Wikipedia. Unfortunately I'm not competent enough on the rules and procedures of Wikipedia, so my attempts to post an article failed, and even considered as advertising (?). I wanted to inquire into advise and assistance from you and your colleagues. Your help will be highly appreciated.

With greetings from friendly country of Wirtland, and kind regards,

Cris

Cristopher Luengo Witizen (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Witizen PR Attache Foreign Office Government of Wirtland WIRTLAND www.Wirtland.com | http://Witizens.ning.com | http://Wirtland.blogspot.com Witizen (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Witizen

knights hospitalier

Was wondering why you deleted the Corsairs with Crosses section so that I'm able to refine or redraft a revision. Cheers Ampupandamplify (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because was without sources, see WP:PROVEIT--Yopie 13:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverts in user talk pages and WP:BLANKING

Howdy. I accidentally ran into User talk:Tipi Tiki - you warned the newbie, he/she blanked the warning, then you two began reverting. Why?! I admit that his comments (Yopie is not an admin, Yopie is not an authority) may seem ridiculous or offensive, and that Tipi Tiki does not understand basic collaboration practice (or pretends so), but WP:BLANKING clearly allows any user to blank the warning messages on their talk pages. They've got the warnings, no need to recreate them. NVO (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Lusatia‎

"according to maps, Lužicke hory were part of Lusatia and are part of Czech" Please give me a source, that Lusatia is a part of Czech republic. This map says, that Lusatia is situated in germany and Poland. --Obersachse (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You edited location of Lusatia between Saxony, Branderburg, Poland and Czechia - Lusatia is between these lands. Lusatian hills (geographical name) continued to Lužické hory (geographical name). Please, read first, what you edit and take a look to any map. And compare this map [2]with contemporary map --Yopie 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No. There is written down "Lusatia is a historical region between the ... rivers ... in ...". Between the rivers is right, but in the northern Czech Republic is wrong. Please correct the sentence. --Obersachse (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Helmet (heraldry)

Thanks for the interwikis! It was getting late and I forgot. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Usurp request on wrong page

Hello Yopie, You posted on nl-wiki on the wrong page your request for usurping an account, please add your request on nl:Wikipedia:Verzoek voor hernoeming van account. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Yopie 15:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The account has been renamed. --Erwin(85) 19:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wikipedista:Yopie/monobook.css

A tag has been placed on Wikipedista:Yopie/monobook.css, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -Axmann8 (Talk) 09:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, delete it, without problems, I try remove banners. --Yopie 09:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You should move it to you user name space: User:Yopie/.... I tried to do that, but it won't let me because these are your personal settings. De728631 (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved.--Yopie 09:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Yopie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Lars T. (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing

The user User:PeterBln whose POV you've reverted over at Český Krumlov has been going around to a number of Czechoslovakia/Germany related articles and inserting more or less the same POV text, including over at Beneš decrees, and Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia.radek (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Micronation

What are you doing? My last edit summary explained fairly clearly what I was doing. My POV is that all the Micronations should be deleted... as you can clearly see, I only removed those which aren't actually micronations, such as a piece of land in Germany that went briefly unoccupied after WWII, as well as a chunk of land between the US and Canada which was in limbo due to international treaty. That isn't POV. That is cleaning up cruft so that the list is well defined and follows the description of what a micronation is in the Micronation article. If there are individual entries which I removed which you think should stay in the article, I suggest you take that to the talk page, but as you can see from the edit history, I spent a good deal of time carefully going through the entire list, and looking specifically at every single article. Reverting my edits with snide edit summaries was less than appreciated. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars

Did you seriously just hit me with a template warning? Not only have I been here for years, I'm also an admin, and I have patiently explained my edits to the list of micronations here, and on that article's talk page. My changes were made in good faith, and your reactions have been less than constructive. Please see my explanation here. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this was serious, because you edited without explaining and consensus, and without good faith (please see your edit on top - "My POV is that all the Micronations should be deleted" - this isn't NPOV).BTW I´m here for years and I´m member of CS ArbCom, so, I know rules. It will be better to take time for cooling and for consensus in talk page.--Yopie 00:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I know you've been here for years. Which is why it was a really, really stupid move on your part to template me. You have shown extremely poor judgment in this matter. I clearly explained that I took action contrary to my POV. Despite this, you tried to kick off an edit war, while lobbing insults at me, and wildly misconstruing my intentions. I did something to protect articles which by and large I believe should be deleted. I think that is extremely good faith editing on my part, and I find your behavior deeply offensive, and extremely amateurish. Were I doing what you accuse me of, all those articles would have been deleted, and I would have dropped an indefinite block on you... that this isn't and will not ever be the case exposes your flawed logic. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, be civil.--Yopie 20:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Says the guy who put a template on a regular's page... That's a good one. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Clubs and Societies

How is a make believe organization that claims members not a club or society? Micronations are no different than any other social organization. My edits are entirely legitimate. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! Here are some helpful links which I think may help you become a strong contributor

Welcome!

Hello, Yopie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hiberniantears (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem

Hiberniantears is adding a wrong category of "clubs and societies" to many articles about micronations. The complete list is here --124.170.198.82 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WE solve it, but, please wait with edits till these conflict will be resolved here Talk:List of micronations. Thank you for your care. --Yopie 07:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Good will

Hope we can let a contentious past remain in the past. While I have made my views on Micronations clear, I believe that my efforts have helped the topic, and I have had the opportunity to learn a bit along the way. In that same time, I have reviewed your contributions, and witnessed your good faith efforts to build the 'pedia. Let me know if I can be of help to you in the future. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I happy, that we settle in constructive manner and I must say, that your edits were in good faith.--Yopie 16:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

Hi, how do i become a member of the micro wiki group and how do I put those funny templates (like "male" and such on my profile in here? (28 may 2009)

best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordlicious (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Simply, read Wikipedia:User page design center.--Yopie 16:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Micronation links

Please do not delete these links. They comply with WP:EL. Please review my comments on the discussion page. --124.170.58.216 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacques Henry Wüstenberg

This is a WWW-source. It shows that Wüstenberg was since 1846 Pair of France.

[3]

--91.15.236.118 (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Anon, please add reference in article. BTW: He was pair from 1842, not 1846.--Yopie 16:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha

I'd like to ask you try not to call edits in a content dispute vandalism, although I understand how frustrating it is to keep reverting POV-pushing over and over. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has been biased if not slanderous. I expanded on some of the subjects and added refrences to sources that would constitute the other side of the argument while retaining the earlier texts with only editorial corrections. When did introducing such references constitute vandalism??

Now: I have been an internet user since 1992 (good ole usenet...) but only recently started to edit things in WikiPediaWikipedia. I stand by my previous edits and would welcome further improvements and additions to them. I shall revert back to my version and ask of Yolpi or whoever to contribute, not axe outright. Or is Yolpi really doing the right thing here?

--Samspensclason (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sam..thing, first read WP:NOR, WP:RELY and specially WP:SPS. You added only self-published sources about exceptional claim, and thus you must conform with WP:REDFLAG, this mean that for your claims you must have high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. --Yopie 08:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Duchy of Münsterberg (Ziębice)

Thanks for your edit, but please remember that this is the English and not the Czech Wikipedia. According to the naming conventions English names are preferred. Vilém Opavský was duke of a duchy which is called Duchy of Troppau here. The English equivalent of Vilém is William, and the duke should therefore be called William of Troppau. At least thats how I understand WP:UE. Karasek (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

List of micronations

I have reversed your UNDO of my change to this article. The material I removed already exists as a dedicated article at List of leaders of micronations --203.166.245.85 (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed your UNDO of my change to this article. The material I added which you removed is simply an addition of Wirtland's flag and leader's name - which are required columns of your table. Contact me if you have any questions, please. Witizen (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Reverted - your change was much more than just "an addition of flag and leader's name". Please discuss first. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: edit of 18:03, 28 June 2009 (- not notable) It is, in fact, notable locally. Has been the subject of media attention and appears in the book referenced. Your/wikipedia's definition of 'notable' before I revert the changes? Thanks.DominicCyninge (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.10.124 (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You say it himself - this micronation is notable only locally. Please, read WP:N.--Yopie 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

External links were deleted, because they don't comply with WP:ELNO, as was explained. For example "Links normally to be avoided - Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists."--Yopie 11:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wirtland

External links were deleted, because they don't comply with WP:ELNO, as was explained. For example "Links normally to be avoided - Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists."--Yopie 11:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification. In that case, it would be nice if the rest of deleted links would be restored. As I explained, in writing the Wirtland entry, we followed the model of Atlantium article. I am willing to comply with all requirements, of course, and wish to thank everybody for valuable edits. However, we see that features acceptable in Atlantium article are under attack in Wirtland article. Same applies to notices about conflict of interest and self-published sources, inserted in Wirtland entry. I hope we don't have double standards here? Witizen (talk)Witizen

Please

1) use talk page of article, not personal.

2) read [[WP:ELNO]

3) Atlantium was corrected, but have only one "wrong" link, your article was with many.

4) Don´t copy and paste text from other pages.--Yopie 12:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Masaryk University

Hi Yopie. May I copy your comment to Talk:Greek love? It's probably a better place for the discussion. I already replied there. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course.--Yopie 23:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette alert

I hereby let your know that I have asked for community comments regarding your recent edit to my talk page. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

When you tell someone that they misused any of the hundreds of templates, you have a responsibility to show them exactly where they may have misused it. Any editor can be prompted with a template - whether they're brand new or have 20,000 edits. However, if you provide a warning, show them where they did it ... especially if they ask. Please provide your background to the template at WP:WQA ASAP. Thanks in advance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Yopie, I appreciate the explanation. We weren't going to hear the end of it without your input. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your signature

Please would you consider adding a link to either your User page or your User Talk page to your signature? This will make it a lot easier for other Wikipedia users to communicate with you (please see WP:SIG#Links for more). Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wirtland

Please explain the reason of COI - thanks. Witizen (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

I was just coming here about the sock issue. I violently disagreed with you, until I thought about it for a minute. There's a quirk of how they sign their posts that is compelling at least. I'll post it if you (Yopie) open the SPI. tedder (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and Tedder, Yopie - it smells rather of sockpuppetry. Please do file a report, so we can know one way or another. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have complained to Arbiters. Rich church mouse (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Rich Church Mouse

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater

With respect to this revert you did to the Pilsen disambig page: please read WP:MOSDAB, especially WP:MOSDAB#Exceptions, before deleting other people's work on a disambig: redirects are linked in a disambig page when they provide the disambiguated term not available in the direct link. This disambig page is not for Plzen but Pilsen, so main links featuring "Pilsen" are navigationally preferred, even if redirects, to links featuring "Plzen", even if direct links. Also, you blanket-reverted all my changes just to undo one aspect of them, which is not constructive: please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, thanks. 62.147.38.187 (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don´t use redirects, you can use "pipe" in wikilinks. Se please read WP:PIPE. --Yopie (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Principality of Nueva Granada

Is not an HOAX is a Micronation, check all the kind of micronations that there is, and if you are going to delete all from wikipedia, i will understand, I am sorry, english is not my first language, but i will understand 100 % of what you write to me.

Thank you. Best Regards --Henry Knight (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yopie:

I saw your contributions, you are into micronation why did you erase the article ? Is not ok ? Let me know. . Thank you.

--Henry Knight (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, read Wikipedia:MICROCON. Your article lacks notability and third-party sources and was deleted by admin, not by me, this mean, that my nomination was reviewed by competent person.--Yopie (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Stalking

Dear Yopie!

I do not know where you picked this very annoying and very impolite manner up.

Would you like to get a stalking too? O.K. All right!--Nmate (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

.I´m not stalker, we probably have work on same articles, not more, not less. Of course, your edit in article Micronation is clear stalking. Next time you will be reported.--Yopie (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am so scared. Of course I do not suppouse that you do not know the "Gdańsk - Danzig Vote" as you have been editing wikipedia for a long time. As far as I know Gabriel Bethlen was an ethnic Hungarian. So your edits and your edit summaries were very very impolite there. Or, didn't you know that Gabriel Bethlen is a Hungarian hero?

To as Bratislava, You have (almost) never edited this topic. I have a bet on this. A bottle of any kind of Czech beer. :) So it was a clear stalking.--Nmate (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Dear Yopie,

Do not joke with me. Please keep in mind that this is not the MySpace but the English Wikipedia. By the way, having seen your previous edits (and your obvious affiliation with Pan- Slavism, denying even the ethnic cleansing of the Sudetengermans) I did not believe that you wishing ever to argue about anything on Wikipedia but I am sorry if I was wrong. And You might go to Talk:Bratislava#Presporok to explain your reverts.--Nmate (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cau, muźu te prosim poprosit aby si prestal vymazavat moje upravy v textu? Samozrejme muzes rict svuj nazor a ja budu ten posledni kdo by si neuznal chybu ale ty proste smazes cokoli co ja napisu bez toho aby si se vubec podival co jsem napsal.

Pochazim z mesta Wrocław a vim co pisu. Pokud chcęs smazat vsechno co ja napisu tak aspon vysvetli co bylo spatnę.

Mej se hezky Jadran91 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, how are you i hope you are fine

if this would be the case, then the whole article would be wrong. it would have to be named lower silesia in the borders before 1815. but thats not the case. people who lived and live in that region often also identify as silesians, furthermore its not by hazard that the lower silesian flag may be used in eastern saxony federal state. furthermore, i corrected the text grammatically as well, and you just delete everything. thats not a very professional attitude. The article lower silesia is about all of the region, including parts of lower silesian upper lusatia. it is called lower silesian upper lusatia, hence its lower silesian. i think the naming conventions dont forbid the indication of the historic german names in italics since they arent used in the text, but are only mentioned once, and this in italics. i dont think that this is forbidden. it enriches the article and gives more information at a glance.

Take care

Jadran91 (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

hi how are you i hope you are fine i provided a translation of what i wrote, since i wrote roughly the same thrice in three languages take careJadran91 (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lower Silesia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the article to stop people from edit warring. Please discuss things at the talk page and do not keep reverting each other until that discussion has reached a consensus. If you can't reach a consensus, consider seeking a third opinion through WP:3O, WP:WikiProject Poland, or some other form of dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

hi how are you

Hi how are you? I hope you are fine. It is unlogical what you say. First, of course there may be a silesian eagle in the coat of arms of czechia since one of the three historical regions of czechia is silesia. Second, can you show me a coat of arms of a region with the bohemian lion, which is not in bohemia? take care, Jadran91 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Jadran91, in "your" CoA of region Goerlitz is Bohemian lion, so region is in Bohemia.. Yes, this is weird and unlogic. Please, understand police of wikipedia about reliable sources and "original research". First, all must be published before it was on wiki. Second, "original research" and "synthesis" are not allowed. Thus, if you presume from CoA of region, that it was in Silesia and this is not explicitly published in reliable source (not blog, another wiki etc.), it is wrong. --Yopie (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

the region west of lusatian neisse first belonged to lower silesia administratively second it belongs to it linguistically since the silesian accent still is spoken third it belongs to it culturally which can be proven by the official page of kreis görlitz

on the official website of kreis görlitz it says:

the bohemian lion represents the long and changeful belonging to the kingdom of bohemia the lower silesian eagle embodies the cultural identification of a part of the inhabitants of the county with silesia

Der Böhmische Löwe repräsentiert die lange und wechselnde Zugehörigkeit zum Königreich Böhmen. Der Niederschlesische Adler verkörpert die kulturelle Identifikation eines Teils der Landkreiseinwohner mit Schlesien.

http://www.kreis-goerlitz.de/city_info/webaccessibility/index.cfm?waid=126&item_id=840394&old_item_id=0&oldrecord=48716&oldmodul=5&olddesign=0

so we have these three criteria, culturally, linguistically and administratively

what else does one need to count a region as part of a region —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadran91 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

here is the constitution of the free state of saxonia:

http://www.landtag.sachsen.de/de/landtag/grundlagen/86.aspx

in the preamble it says:

Anknüpfend an die Geschichte der Mark Meißen, des sächsischen Staates und des niederschlesischen Gebietes........hat sich das Volk im Freistaat Sachsen ............ diese Verfassung gegeben

following the history of the mark meißen, the saxonian state, and the lower silesian area ..... the people in the free state of saxonia ....... has given itself this constitution

in article 2 number 4 it says

Im Siedlungsgebiet der Sorben können neben den Landesfarben und dem Landeswappen Farben und Wappen der Sorben, im schlesischen Teil des Landes die Farben und das Wappen Niederschlesiens, gleichberechtigt geführt werden.

in the settlement area of the sorbs, beside the land colours and the land coat of arms, the colours and coat of arms of the sorbs, in the silesian part of the land the colours and the coat of arms of lower silesia can be used equally

if the parts west of lusatian neisse just would have been part of the province of lower silesia and not of lower silesia, then these parts wouldnt be called silesian in the saxon constitution Jadran91 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't make global reverts

If you disagree with something, then change that particular thing. Don't add back in other mistakes because you can't be bothered to evaluate changes one-by-one. In this edit [4], you removed a tag, but at the same time re-added an incorrect citation, and overlinking on dates. See WP:CONTEXT. Even if removing the tag was correct, you overall made the article worse. Stop your irresponsible editing. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Saint Ambrose

Yopie, I do not intend to commit acts of vandalism (especially given we are both lawyers :) ), but please help me understand why one group is permitted to link to their Order of Saint Ambrose (in all caps), but another is spamming? Also, if you have any pointers on my deleted article please let me know. I am new to editing Wikipedia, but it seems that I have observed articles that are less informative than the ones I have authored. Thanks. User:Will84 —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

Other spam is deleted. Please read WP:EL about rules of external links.--Yopie (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

List of micronations status review

I have nominated List of micronations for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Yours truly, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism / content blanking of List of micronations and Micronations

Thought you might like to be aware that Ckatz is currently repeatedly vandalising both of the above articles. --203.214.132.100 (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As stated at User talk:Orderinchaos (where the IP also posted), please note the supposed "vandalism" consisted of removing a single link repeatedly spammed by rolling IPs that are likely connected to the site. The site's owner is also a (former) Wikipedia editor, and the site has never been deemed worthy for use as a reference source. It was removed from Micronations in June May 2009 by TheRedPenOfDoom with discussion, which the IP participated in as an opposing party. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that despite Ckatz's false assertion above, there was and is no consensus to remove the external link he is now engaging in edit-warring in order to blank; in fact the current consensus supports the retention of the link, as it is fully compliant with WP:EL. --203.214.132.100 (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify the supposedly "false" accusation, given the June May 2009 discussion at Talk:Micronation#Link farm. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is completely unrelated to the subject at hand. Please do not make deliberately misleading posts of this nature. --203.214.132.100 (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I know Ckatz as honest contributor. Please, anon, don't bother me with false accusations.--Yopie (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Poll concerning external link at List of micronations and Micronations

In an attempt to help determine consensus on this matter, I have established a poll, which you may wish to review. --203.214.132.100 (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi there. I'm shortly going to propose that this site be added as an WP:EL to both List of micronations and Micronations.

As the site includes the most extensive, up-to-date listing of micronations currently available from any source, I believe that it is directly relevant to the subject of those articles, and that its inclusion within them would significantly complement the existing content, and enhance their usefulness and the level of informativeness they communicate to the general reader.

However, before I iniate that discussion I firstly wanted to disclose that I'm the owner and primary author of www.listofmicronations.com. Secondly, in order to avoid any suggestion of WP:COI I intend to refrain from adding the link myself, should the eventual consensus support my proposal. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

List of micronations

I wrote my intentions on the Talk page of List of micronations. I'm only removing the entries that don't have enough notability to support an article, as well as a few entries that have an article, but are not actually micronations. I'm not removing any of the others since they are micronations, and do support an article. This was just a cleanup in accordance with some of the constructive comments that I think came out of the AfD. I have no intentions of removing any other entries on the list. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, I've readded Austenasia on the list of micronations. I think that you removed it, mistakening it as non-notable. On the contrary, there is an article about it in the Guardian newspaper, and it had already been agreed on the discussion page that Austenasia should stay on the list. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal union

Hello Yopie. Don't revert my edit. I deleted a Croatian POV. There was no "Hungarian-Croatian state" or any ridiculous "Hungary-Croatia", this is only a lie, even if someone put there bad sources. Please revert croatian nationalists, not me. Toroko (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please read Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, or Statehood and the law of self-determination, or The Habsburg monarchy, 1618-1815. All books say about personal union between Croatia and Hungary...--Yopie (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You are not right, for example read A concise history of Hungary or this Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages. If you look at Britannica, Britannica Coloman it doesn't mention any personal union in the primary sources, only the Hungarian conquest of Croatia Britannica Ladislaus I. You can see, that even Britannica has contradictions. Here the reason is the copy of the Croatian POV, which can be read at Britannica: History of Croatia section. But at the primary sources, at Coloman and Ladislas, you can't find the Croatian POV. Have you ever heard about a country called "Croatia-Hungary"? Because Croats state this. This is false, must be removed, and next time revert the real vandals, and don't push POVs back. Otherwise, dynastic union is not personal union. Toroko (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Holy Roman Empire from Duchies of Silesia

Hello, I've noticed that you Removed category:States of the Holy Roman Empire from several Silesian Duchies. Right now, Duchy of Oels has, besides Category:Duchies of Silesia, some categories stating that it was established in 1313 and disestablished in 1884, and that it is both a Polish and a Czech historical region. There is no hint that it was part of the Holy Roman Empire, Prusssia, and Germany, too. How come? -- Matthead  Discuß   01:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Matthead, these duchies were not states of HRE, because were not directly under Emperor, but feel free and add category German historical regions, because this correct. Tschüss --Yopie (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Slovak declaration of independence 1939

Dear Yopie, I'm starting to consider your position of Czechoslovakia more valid the more I think about it, meaning legal continuity of CZ. One question is, how should Wikipedia treat events like the "Slovak declaration of independence 1939", should Wikipedia write that it legally didn't happen, was legally non-possible etc? And what about existence of 1939 Slovakia, we have very many articles discussing 1939 Slovakia and none of them mention that legally CZ continued to exist. Should these be re-written to reflect the fact that existence of 1939 Slovakia was illegal (if CZ was legal instead) ? Hobartimus (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This idea is not true, must be removed

If you are not well informed in that matter, please don't edit about it. You mentioned dynastic union, but now you say personal union, these are not the same, you don't know your exact statement. However, there was no any type of union, Hungary conquered Croatia. Maybe your very nice Czech encyclopedia says union, but books of Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press say that there was no union, but Hungarian conquest. Accept that and don't readd again the wrong information. Toroko (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but your links ended in first page of book and I dont have a time for reading hundred pages. Can you provide me exact page?--Yopie (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Page 267 in the first and page 186 in the second book. You can search for the important words as well. Toroko (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Full titles

Hello Yopie I am suggesting that either the full title of a king/emporer should go into the lead or stick to the abreviated title. Somewhere in between the two is just a mess. Polargeo (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Almanchdegotha

I noticed that you have been migrating from adg.org to other sites, it looks like these aren't terribly RS like either, being free hosting sites. Maybe http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=almanach+de+gotha%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts might provide better refernces? Maybe they could be put on Wikisource? Rich Farmbrough, 03:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

File:Flag of Eastland.pdf

Hello. Please stop adding a F10 speedy deletion ({{db-badfiletype}}) tag to File:Flag of Eastland.pdf. The file does not qualify for deletion under WP:CSD#F10. If you want to see the file deleted, please go to WP:FFD. I understand you're trying to help but please don't keep adding speedy tags to File:Flag of Eastland.pdf when they are not applicable. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but file is bad filetype and is not used in any article. Clearly for speed deletion. --Yopie (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think because it is an image, even though it is a pdf it does not qualify under F10. The statement is "the following files are rarely sound, image, or video" that does not mean that they are never an image, as in this case. Polargeo (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User pages intrusion etc.

Thanks for your comments. There are many valid references on Križevci and Dobor massacres; I keep bumping into those all the time. Secondly, what's the point of [[]] bracketing in Wikipedia if it can be interpreted negatively, as self-referencing? So I think a bit of self-censorship when applying rules and regulations is in order here. I understand you are a lawyer, but you should know what I'm talking about even better. The purpose of regulations is to make life easier, not impossible. On your last point, I didn't move anything to my user space; I started a new page in my user space, rather. So I don't know why you were intruding into my user space and editing my personal files? Are you sure that regulations allow you to do that? Thanks for your useful contributions though. Bosnipedian (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for clarification. My intention was not to use Wikipedia as a free host, as there are millions of free-hosting services for that, not to mention blogs. I would appreciate if you from now on stayed away from my personal space. Thanks. Bosnipedian (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but obey the rules.--Yopie (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Italian orders of knighthood

Hi there. I noticed that there was a bit of a content dispute on this list a week or so ago. As part of its featured list candidacy, I just wanted to check whether dispute is now resolved, or if you feel the content is incorrect? Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, there was dispute between me and Chrisieboy, about correct terms, but today is this OK. I think, that this article deserves "Featured".--Yopie (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to contribute, the FLC has been re-listed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Italian orders of knighthood/archive2. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

LIST OF FRENCH PEERAGES

I am sorry ,it was an error! I know the counts can not be peerages. But the familly Aubert de Bulbon d'Apchon is very famous in Auvergne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince elvis mozart (talk • contribs) 14:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Karkonosze#Poll_II

There has been a new and expanded preferential poll created on Talk:Karkonosze similar to the recent Ireland poll. The votes from the previous poll could unfortunately not be transferred over to the new system and you may need to recast your vote. I apologise for the inconvenience. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Galánta (Galanta) District

Template:Galánta (Galanta) District has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.--roamata (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that nomination was subsequently relisted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Other article?

Which article did you mean? [5] I'd asked about it a couple of weeks ago on the article talk page but no one responded. talk:Micronation#Global Country of World Peace. I'm open to suggestions.   Will Beback  talk  07:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean, that this is not micronation. If yes, belongs to List of micronations. --Yopie (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Let's have this discussion at talk:Micronation#Global Country of World Peace. I suspect that's the right article for it, as other theoretical or proposed nations seem to be discussed there too.   Will Beback  talk  10:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left another note at talk:Micronation#Global Country of World Peace. If there's no further input I'll restore the material, but I'd be happy to find a better solution if there is one.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

occult

I of course agree with you. However, allowing that list to persist on those heavily watched pages for the next few days might draw appropriate interest from the more academically inclined. No matter. Go well.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Process

Hello, Yopie. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by posting in WQA. Please note that it is recommended that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Gerardw (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

House of Eggenberg

Servus!

Yes, I agree even with the tone of his/her posts there and on the list of princes of Austria-Hungary page he is either an extremely arrogant adult or a teen. So far his vandalism hasn't harmed my contributions greatly and the house of eggenberg is a work in progress anyhow, as it states on my user page. Thanks for the comments!

Tschuess! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smf77 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Italian Orders of Knighthood

Do you want to say whether you support or oppose the re-nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Italian orders of knighthood/archive2? Chrisieboy (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Combatting vandalism

Thank you for the ongoing and thankless efforts you make to combat the persistent vandalism to which I and a number of Wiki articles have been subjected. Admins have made it clear they will offer minimal help, and experienced editors keep treating each act of vandalism as if it is merely misguided and not part of a pattern, rather than a calculated war of attrition. Thank you for being a mensch. We shall win! FactStraight (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Close to 3RR - please use the talk page

Yopie, you are approaching 3RR on Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk. Frankly, I do not wish to continue any kind of conversation with you since in my opinion you are trying to provoke me but if I do not do that I will also be blocked together with you.--Nmate (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Knight

Note that I consider your repeated removal of sourced material and now restoration of unsourced material, as well as the deletion of appropriate tags, to be beyond vandalism. Try it once more and I will bring you to the noticeboard. DinDraithou (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your hoax is not sourced. In book, you provided, is NOTHING about hereditary knighthood. And tags - I added source, so, I deleted tag. Clear?--Yopie (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Too late. I've reported you. DinDraithou (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Concluded as "This is not vandalism, this is a content dispute."--Yopie (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

German place names

Yopie, why are you removing German place names for Czech towns and cities? I can understand perhaps removing names for minor towns, but for Austerlitz and Brno? Without alternate place names, Central Europe can be hard to understand, especially for places, such as Galicia, that have changed hands (and languages) countless times. Please stop. Axeman89 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Because these names are not official, or used by locals. There are no German minority and adding German names to Czech cities is offensive. Read WP:PLACE.--Yopie (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Czech Republic may no longer have a sizable German population, but German place names are part of its historical legacy, and help with historical research and understanding. Axeman89 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, German names are relevant especially for places, which had sizeable German minorities in the past, no matter if you think it is offensive. - Darwinek (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Again - it is against rules.And maybe this is valid with places whitch had sizeable German minorities in the past, but Tábor or Hradec Králové were without significant minority--Yopie (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not, and you should bring this issue in the first place to talk of WP:PLACE or other place and not start disruptive editing. Wikipedia is a tolerant community. It is a widely accepted and used standard to use relevant historical placenames, German for places in Poland, Czech Republic; Hungarian for southern Slovakia; Swedish for Finnish places etc. etc. If you want to challenge this, you should bring it to talk page of relevant WP policy. - Darwinek (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Darwinek, you are wrong. Hungarian names for southern Slovakia or Swedish for Finnish places are because there are significant minority today.--Yopie (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure but these also apply for places like Bruntál, where before 1945 were virtually no Czech people. Erasing German names from places like that is a significant loss of historical information. It is the same situation as with the Yiddish names for some towns in Poland or Belarus with pre-war Jewish communities. It is just pure common sense to use them here, even if there are no Jewish communities there today. - Darwinek (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Italian orders of knighthood/archive2

Hi, can you revisit this FLC to ensure your concerns have been resolved? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Krkonoše

Dear Yopie, thank you for contributing to this English language edition of wikipedia, English belonging to the Germanic languages, subgroup West Germanic languages, whose three most spoken languages are English, German and Dutch. Would you please note that the english name for Labe is Elbe and that the english name for Elbfall is elbfall since it is waterfall and not vodopád. Furthermore it is vandalism to delete all German names from the Krkonoše article, for example at Hohenelbe castle. Take care SlaskiAnanasek91 (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The use of db-repost

In case you don't see my latest response at Talk:Székely Gugel before it's deleted: the previous deletion was also a speedy deletion. It wasn't the result of a deletion discussion. Therefore, db-repost is inapplicable. But I replaced the tag with a db-spam tag, since the article is pure advertising, despite the author's ingenuous insistence that it isn't. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, its reasonable.--Yopie (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Werwolf

Yopie, due to the continuing vandalism on "Werwolf" I will be glad to assist you in monitoring that page. Best Wishes, Jon Jonasson (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Česko-Slovensko

I commented my adding of "Česko-Slovensko" on the discussion page but you reverted the change without any explanation. If you believe that the article is for any reason more accurate without the native name in one of the official languages, would you mind giving your reasons there. Thank you. Martin --78.105.144.87 (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

International Order of Saint Hubert

This article may prove to be based on a false premise, but it's not obviously and incontestably so. It does make a reasonable claim for notability. As such it's not a speedy deletion candidate IMHO. Thparkth (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I nominated it for AfD. Sources are about other order with similar name, see talk. --Yopie (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thparkth (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Habsburg-Lorraine

The Habsburg-Lorraines are the successor house of the Lorraines and belongs then on the Lorraine article and not the Habsburg article. The Habsburgs died out in the 18th century, and the article mentions this and ends with them. So why include information of the Habsburg-Lorraines into the 20th century? Especially since the Habsburg-Lorraines are a different house, the successor cadet branch of the Lorraines. There is no reason to confuse readers, not blur the line of the Habsburg and Lorraine Houses, nor have redundant information on one article and in another. Having two articles for Habsburg-Lorraine will also cause editing issues, where one eiditor will add to one article, then a second editor to the second article, then a third editor seeing the two articles paste one over the other and loose information. They need to be distinctly separate. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Habsburg-Lorrianes are the Lorraines, they simply changed their name after the Habsburgs died out. Marie Theresa was a Habsburg that held a title herself, which was forbidden but after winning a war was allowed to nonetheless. I believe she was Queen of Bohemia. Anyways, a Lorraine was wedded to her, and then he claimed the name of Habsburg for his own, adding it to his ancestral Lorraine surname. Not that the Lorraine name was dishonourable, but the Habsburg name held much more weight in European circles. Anyways, it would be like you taking the name of your wife and then trying to argue you are no longer part of your family but somehow are and always have been part of your wife's family. Or that somehow by taking her name, that you created a whole new family that is independent from either family's history. Granted, the Habsburg-Lorraine name is known more than simply the Lorraine name, but they are connected because they are the same uninterrupted family line. Simply a name change. I don't think that anyone or any family should receive an article for every time the go through a name change. Like a movie star having an article pre-Hollywood name and post. Unless the Lorraine article gets much too long, I don't think a new article is needed just yet. There is no need to splice something that is not that large to begin with. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• You are incorrect. If your logic is working, merge House of Windsor to House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha or House of Glücksburg or House of Oldenburg. The same was House of Romanov. And same is House of Orange-Nassau, House of Nassau, House of Mecklenburg and Lippe. Simply, names of reigning houses are different from commoners surname. --Yopie (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The House of Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp is merged with the House of Romanov. The House of Windsor is a junior offshoot of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, not the successor house, so they are treated as different because Windsor would have no claim to the titles and territories of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Anyways, one can go back and forth with precedence, so it really is a case by case decision. As of now, I do not believe that Lorraine is a large enough article to warrant splitting. Most of the article is of ancestral houses that do not have their own articles, and even with all of that, it still is rather a short article. It is not that I would object to a Habsburg-Lorraine article, just that I never support splicing articles if it leaves two stubs or starter pages. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Revert on H.P. Lovecraft article

Hello Yopie, you reverted a change I had made-- the change I made was for factual accuracy; your revert simply made the section once again factually inaccurate. Why? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.193.101 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your revert

With this revert, you removed sourced material with the edit summary "Unreliable sources, POV". I wonder why you consider Zdeněk Beneš, Václav Kural and Alfred De Zayas unreliable? They are all historians with evident expertise in the subject. The two Czech historians have published well after the fall of Communism, so one does not need to worry about censorship issues. I assume you have mistaken the scholars for someone else, most probably you mistook Zdeněk Beneš for Edvard Beneš? If you however stand by your view that the above mentioned scholars are unreliable, I expect you explain why, best at the article's talk page or the RS/N board. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please, use talk page of article. --Yopie (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

De Zayas is not only reliable, he is an expert of the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europa, but of other nationals (e.g. the Armenians),too. As a Cuban-born American he seems to have a great sensitivity for expelled or displaced people.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Micronations revert

Hello Yopie, I saw you reverted a change to the list of micronations, the addition of the title "Dr." to Eric Lis. Can I ask what form you think the style should take?

Thanks.

Timcrow (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Plese, read WP:CREDENTIAL "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name."--Yopie (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, very helpful. Thank you. I thought that it would be appropriate to include in a list of names, rather than in prose, but I do see where you were coming from. I'll leave it off, then. Timcrow (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Actually I'm a little speechless as you reverted my edits three times without a convincing reason. WP:ELNO#Rich media is absolutely clear about such links, you should start to discuss your reasons for the deletion at the article's talk page, Thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Royal Victorian Order

Would you care to explain how my changing this page from saying things like "I like boobies" and "who cut the cheese" back to what they originally said (based on the page history) was vandalism? Isn't that, oh, I don't know, correcting vandalism? 68.100.149.251 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Order of Saint Stephan

Can you please explain your revert? I will remove the tags but I will add the information I added again with sources. The article has no sources in the text. You should know that this is not according to the rules of wikipedia. EddieAlighieri (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP ANI report

Hello, unfortunately your behavior left me no other option but to report you here.[6]--Nmate (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-adding vandalism via irresponsible reverting

Hello Yopie! Please be more accurate when you are reverting changes. I noticed your personal campaign against user Nmate's edits, ([7] and your relation to Hungarian users and/or to their activity on wikipedia) but if you would check his edits on article Slovaks, you would notice that he only reverted vandalism (removal of referenced content, material falsification). Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 09:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Servus Baxter, I´m not against Hungarians, you or Nmate, or I´m not stalking Nmate. He personally dislikes me, as was proven two times in wiki etiquette alerts and accusation of stalking is his usual method of work (other is accusation of sockpuppeting). As you personally know, we meet many times in many articles and we don't have any problems. --Yopie (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, next time we meet at ArbCom where I am able to prove my assertions by diffs. Also, you made personal attack on me on Wikiqetiquette alerts as well. And you suborned Iaaasi, who was blocked for indefinite time since then, to participate in that Wikiqetiquette alert discussion on your behalf, which is very serious harrasment and a clear example of wikihounding. Because neither before nor afterwards you encountered Iaaasi on wikipedia but just recognised that I reported him for a violation of 3RR, so you suborned him. But because there is now summer I did not address my grievance to the ArbCom , however, you will no longer have such fortunate from autumn. And in addition, your entire wiki-contribution is nothing more than reverting. Hardly surprising, given that your English is very poor.--Nmate (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer Permissions

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain tools, including Huggle, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Yopie (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Another Slovakian-Hungarian edit war

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%8Cernov%C3%A1_tragedy&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.139.158 (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Košice too. The Hungarian extremists work there too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.148.30 (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Heraldry WikiProject

I saw your name listed at the Heraldry WikiProject, and there is a discussion at the WikiProject Heraldry about whether or not the shape of a shield matters. If you are familiar with heraldic rules, could you weigh in so there is a larger discussion? Some of the images are on my user page here, so if you wish on comment on whether or not they are beautiful or hideous, please do. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Knights Hospitaller Edit

Hi Yopie,

I'm pretty new to editing and discussions on Wikipedia, so I'm unsure of the best place to discuss this with you.

I noticed you rolled back a revision of mine on the Knights Hospitaller article. Rather than make more edits I thought I'd discuss the changes with you, along with my reasons for wanting to change the content.

My main concern was that it lists 7 different names for the order all within brackets in the opening paragraph. The bracketed information is longer than the scentence that it is within. This makes the opening paragraph difficult to read, interrupts the flow of the article and is the first thing that the reader sees (giving an immediate bad impression).

The sentence without brackets should read:

The Knights Hospitaller is a Christian organization that began as an Amalfitan hospital founded in Jerusalem in approximately 1023 to provide care for poor, sick or injured pilgrims to the Holy Land.

After the bracketed information is inserted we are left with:

The Knights Hospitaller (also known as the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta, Order of St. John, Knights of Malta, and Chevaliers de Malte; Italian: Cavalieri dell'Ordine dell'Ospedale di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme or Cavalieri di Malta, French: Ordre des Hospitaliers, Maltese: Ordni ta’ San Ġwann) is a Christian organization that began as an Amalfitan hospital founded in Jerusalem in approximately 1023 to provide care for poor, sick or injured pilgrims to the Holy Land.

This needs making more managable for the reader. When the information in brackets is larger than the surrounding sentence it is an indication that the information needs moving.

I acknowledge that completely removing the information isn't the correct approach, but I would suggest that there is a better way of presenting the information.

How about something like this?

The Knights Hospitaller is a Christian organization that began as an Amalfitan hospital founded in Jerusalem in approximately 1023 to provide care for poor, sick or injured pilgrims to the Holy Land. The Knights Hospitaller are also known as "The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta", "Order of St. John", "Knights of Malta", and "Chevaliers de Malte"; Italian: "Cavalieri dell'Ordine dell'Ospedale di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme or Cavalieri di Malta", French: "Ordre des Hospitaliers", Maltese: "Ordni ta’ San Ġwann".

I hope you've found this feedback constructive.

Many thanks,

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.47.30 (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Matt, usually in the lead of article are translations of names of the subject (see Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg) or Order of the Red Eagle). I think, that your last proposal is OK.--Yopie (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Yopie, I've made a slightly revised update that I think is more readable. Feel free to move the "alternative names" paragraph if you see fit. Thanks, Matt 16:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.47.30 (talk)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yopie. You have new messages at Talk:List_of_former_Nazi_Party_members#WP:V.
Message added 19:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Yopie. You have new messages at Talk:List_of_former_Nazi_Party_members#WP:V.
Message added 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nobility of Italy

G'day mate. I undid your change @ Nobility of Italy - not because I disagree with the need for a citation but if we are going to ask for a citation for each and every title, shouldn't we include a sectional cite note at the top of that small list? Most of those titles are mentioned (and backed with citations) in the respective family name articles, linked to from this article. Do you think it's necessary to ref them again? There isn't really disagreement about the titles (mostly, I suppose, becuase they are not that specific) and I'm not sure adding refs for each one would do much more than provide a copy of refs from other articles. Would appreciate your thoughts.

Other possibility - you cited that title specifically becuase you thought there might be issues with that one in particular. If this is the case we should probably do some work to clear that up.

Regards, Stalwart111 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC).

Gentry of Scotland

Regarding your changes to my last edit about gentry in Scotland I am interested in an explanation to this deletion. Please tell me which mistakes I could have ever made in my posting? I suppose that all facts are right as they are mentioned in the articles about Lairds of Scotland. According to this anyone who has a certain plot of land in Scotland holds the feudal title Laird (or Lady of). I also stated, that these titles are refered as of feudal titles. I suppose that everything I mentioned here is right and that, in a matter of fact, can be placed on Wikipedia. Finally it is the truth. I will revert my changes to the article Scam titles, as you did not explain why the deletion took place in the first place.

Regards, --85.26.165.10 (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please read Earl of Bradford about Lairds: "The term is generally used in the same sense as in England for a Squire or Landowner, in that normally they have a substantial holding of land of pre-eminence in their local area. To refer to it as a title, as they do, therefore is totally incorrect."--Yopie (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Please accept my apologies. --85.26.165.10 (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Karel Schwarzenberg

Hello,
I was sorry to see my contribution on the relationship between the 11th and the 12th Prince of Schwarzenberg erased with no comment whatsoever.
I don't think it is because of the source [8] [9], as it is both correct and local, and consequently presumed more knowledgeable than somebody researching from elsewhere. From the two genealogical tables mentioned, I have counted with care, and jotted down the lines of descendance on a scrap of paper, in order to avoid any mistake. The resulting relationship I then included in the text.
I included it as I thought (and still do) that the-then (and current) formulation of the explanation on the above-mentioned relationship is obscure, and the interest in genealogy from people all around the world would be stimulated by a more specific one. I did so in the Footnotes section of the article, in the least obtrusive manner I could think of.
May I inquire what did not meet your expectations in relation to this insert? Would there be any possibility for this correct and exact piece of information to be incorporated, once again, in the article?
Many thanks, Nerissa-Marie (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Thank you for promptly removing the reversal of my contribution. Allow me to share with you the little diagram that led me to say that the 12th Prince of Schwarzenberg is the fourth cousin twice removed of the 11th Prince. I drew my information from Mr Miroslav Marek's genealogical tables.

JOHANN I Nepomuk Anton Joseph Joachim Prokop (1742-1789), 5th Prince of Schwarzenberg, had the following two sons
Brothers	JOSEPH II Johann Nepomuk Anton Karl (1769-1833), 6th Prince of Schwarzenberg, had son:	KARL I Philipp Johann Nepomuk Joseph (1771-1820), created Prince of Schwarzenberg (2nd Majorat) 1804 had son:
First cousins	JOHANN ADOLF II Joseph Friedrich Karl (1799-1888), 7th Prince of Schwarzenberg, had son:	KARL II Borromäus Philipp (1802-1858), 3th Prince of Schwarzenberg (2nd Majorat), had son:
Second cousins	ADOLF JOSEPH Johann Eduard (1832-1914), 8th Prince of Schwarzenberg, had son:	KARL III Joseph Adolph (1824-1904), 4th Prince of Schwarzenberg (2nd Majorat), had son:
Third cousins	FELIX Medardus Hubert (1867-1946) had son:	KARL IV Friedrich Eduard Emanuel (1859-1913), Fst zu Schwarzenberg, had son:
Fourth cousins	HEINRICH Karl Borromäus Maria Franz von Sales (1903-1965), 11th Prince of Schwarzenberg, adopted by Adolf, 10th Prince of Schwarzenberg, on 7.8.1940	KARL V Friedrich Johann Alfons Ignaz Alexander (1886-1914), Prince of Schwarzenberg, had son:
		KARL VI Friedrich Maria Joseph Johann von Nepomuk Cyrill Method (1911-1986), Prince of Schwarzenberg, had son:
		KARL VII Johannes Nepomuk Joseph Norbert Friedrich Antonius Wratislaw Menas (n.1937), 12th Prince of Schwarzenberg, adopted by Heinrich, the 11th Prince of Schwarzenberg

Thank you,Nerissa-Marie (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Stanislaus Sulkowski

Do you think this guy deserves an article? http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/3682648386/in/faves-richard_arthur_norton/ --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Prince-Bishop

I've reverted your edits to Prince-Bishop. Ordinarily, we would use the modern Slavic placenames for these locations, except that they would be anachronistic when discussing prince-bishops of the (German) Holy Roman Empire. I don't think the Slavic placenames are necessary in the article, but if you want to restore them, please do so in the format Olmütz (now Olomouc), rather than just removing the German names. This is broadly what the guideline on naming conventions recommends. Thanks :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Owen, you probably don't know, that these Prince - bishops were not Reichsfuersten of HRE, but Princes of Bohemia and vassals of the King of Bohemia, not Emperor. Official language of Kingdom of Bohemia was Czech or Latin, not German, till Joseph II. For your information, Bohemia was not direct part of HRE and not in Imperial circles ; laws, coins or courts of HRE were not used in Bohemia. Of course, official languagues of HRE were Latin, French, German, Italian and Czech, not only German. For source see text of Golden Bull of 1356. --Yopie (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. No, I am aware of this, but I have only ever seen these territories referred to with German nomenclature and with reference to being parts of the Holy Roman Empire. Bohemia was very much a part of the HRE (albeit, as you point out, a special part, outside the Reichskreise), but the King of Bohemia was an Imperial elector and German was the predominant urban language. I understand your desire to see the Slavic names in the article, but the German names should not be removed — it would be anachronistic to do so. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted User:Radeksz's edit at Prince-Bishop and suggested we discuss the issue to try to find consensus at Talk:Prince-Bishop#Nationalist / anti-nationalist place naming, where I assume you will way to express your opinion. Let's see if we can solve this dispute amicably. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ahoj

môžeš mi povedať, prosím, svoj e-mail? (MKuciak (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)0

yopie2 zavinac gmail.com --Yopie (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop your vandalism in Hungarian related articles

Stop your panslavism & slavic brotherhood and other chauvinist childish activism in wikipedia. Panslavism was a romantic race based (racist) belief-system, which proved false in the light of modern genetic researches. Your Slovak brother is the only nation in Europe which have serious asiatic genetic backround, with "haplogroup M" Read the article: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/01/mtdna-of-slovaks.html

Stop the deletion of well referenced articles. It is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.78.2 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Stubes99, because you are indefinitely blocked from editing, I will not communicate with you. --Yopie (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have asked an ArbCom Warning

Hello Yopie,

I am under the impression that by these edits [10] [11], you comitted wikihounding and harassment again. So I have asked administrator Excirial to deliver you an ArbCom Warning, in order to be possible to commence a proper enforcment.--Nmate (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Servus Nmate,

thank you for reporting of Hobartimus vandalism, as you know, that deleting of others talk is vandalism. By the way, because you are not editor of articles Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary or Austria-Hungary, somebody can say, that you are stalking me, or you are sock-puppet. --Yopie (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Yopie I do consider some of your edits as such. Especially at talk Austria-Hungary. It was clearly explained that article talk pages are not for forums. I do wonder from time to time, what is your purpose. Hobartimus (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just noticed that in these edits, within 6 minutes you undid 3 of my edits in 3 different articles these were done at the following times

19:31, 2 September 2010

19:26, 2 September 2010

19:25, 2 September 2010

You marked one of the reverts as a minor edit as well, very interesting. Do you have some sort of WP:wikihounding thing going on here? I have to say I'm not impressed. Hobartimus (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Hobartimus,

you vandalised talk page of Austria-Hungary, because you blanked the post of other user. This is vandalism, because WP:VANDAL says: Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, is generally considered vandalism. Same policy says that If you see that a user has added vandalism you may also check the user's other contributions . Do you have any other questions or comments? --Yopie (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We both know that's not the case, I see that you know added WP:personal attacks to the list as well. I provided a clear edit summary as to the reason of the removal (you very rarely provide any edit summaries at all). Edits made in good faith can never be vandalism as you well know. Further, talk pages are covered by covered by WP:TALk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. The post was forum like trolling (like the others before it you should have removed those not readd drivel) sudeten germans, nazis, racism, there was many things in that post not one suggestion on improving the article or anything like that. But I suspect you didn't read the post as you have no interest in the article (as per the talk page logs) other than to follow around my edits. Just lay off of the personal attacks, and the following if you will because it's not a nice thing to do. Good day to you. Hobartimus (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Balkans if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision. Please note that this is not a judgment on any particular edit of yours. I'm simply putting you on notice that sanctions can be imposed without further warning. --Selket ^Talk 15:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Because my edits "in question" are not related to Balkans, but to Slovakia and Hungary, I presume that this notice is null and void.--Yopie (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You presume wrong. The sanctions apply to the Balkans "broadly interpreted." Even if your edits to non-Balkan topics are not covered, future edits to Balkans topics would be. However, lest there be doubt there is an additional set of sanctions governing Eastern Europe about which you are hereby notified. --Selket ^Talk 21:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision.

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas

You might want to have a look here: User talk:92.224.204.66#Insertion of German language books to unrelated articles – Please stop!. The IP's new address is 92.224.204.66. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Yopie (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

IP vandal

Hey Yopie, I saw you reverted a bunch of edits by IP editor 94.190.193.33, and wanted to let you know that they're back, doing the same old thing. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The edits being made by the IP address at 1942 raid in Novi Sad do not appear to be vandalism; for you to continually revert them, therefore, is edit warring. In cases like this you need to discuss edits with the other editor, not revert them and request protection to force them out. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

There was only three reverts in 24 hours, after this I according to rules requested page protection. I presume, that warring IP is indef blocked Stubes99

Decline reason:

You have reverted a total of 7 times over the course of several days, with no apparent attempts to discuss the situation with the IP (Either on the article, or on their talk pages). Keep in mind that WP:3RR is simply an extension of WP:EW - if you are locked in an edit war the proper course is to disengage and discuss the issue. In case the other user refuses to discuss man can always report this to WP:AN3 in order to have the situation examined. I equally note that you requested semi-protection instead of full protection, which would only have affected the IP's ability to edit and not yours.

Having said all that, i would note that the edits in question are not clear vandalism, and that you usedrollback to revert them. I would point out that using rollback is only permitted when there is a clear reason to revert; Using rollback in an edit war may lead to the permission being revoked. To conclude - your unblock request doesn't indicate that you understood the block, which is the reason i am declining it for now. If you believe that the IP in question is stubes99, please open a case on WP:SSP, including plausible evidence for the accusation after you are unblocked. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Heraldry articles

Recently I deleted additions to the Heraldry and Coat of arms that appeared to advertise certain heraldic artists, the addition that listed the artists from the 1996 heraldry conference. My edits were reverted and you reinstated them. Well, I discovered that one of those artists listed, Andrew Stewart Jamieson, actually was the IP who added that information. I also watch over the Jamieson article, and removed outdated material, like the St. Peter's Codex which never received funding and so only has completed a few pages, hardly the world's largest codex since the Middle Ages. Then I corrected style errors, like randomly capitalized common nouns and external links to art sites that solicit work. Apparently, Jamieson is not only editing the article himself, but soliciting others to edit the article through his Facebook group to edit in the manner he deems suitable as well. One of those people happens to be acquainted with me, so shared this, which Jamieson wrote about me,

I really am not interested in this [name withheld]. He took it upon himself to removed info from my wiki page... who does he think he is ? who is he to make such choices and ask him why he removed that I am a bespoke book producer, why he removed my link to the Artworkers Guild in London one ofthe most honoured art institutions in England of which I am an elected Brother. Ask why when I restore it he removes it? Ask him about Otto Hupp, Carl Alexander von Volborth and Mon. Bruno Heim all mentioned in the removed paragraph...Durer was not mentioned or Strohl because the paragraph was about the 21st Century and a living art form not just an historic one.....I have to thank you for sharing the corespondence but frankly I really am past caring. Those who know anything about heraldry know the truth and everyone now knows what this person is about. You are free to support and encourage him but I wash my hands of this whole ridiculous business. He is and this is of no importance other than I wanted to make a moral point that he has no right to tamper with things that do not concern him. My best wishes.

I have today added citation needed tags through the Jamison article, hopefully warding off the people Jamieson is soliciting from editing the article. Could I ask you to take a look at my edits and see if they are out of line anywhere?

Kindly, [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will take a look and care. He is a little bit rude, but I hope that we find consensus, that his advertising this way is not welcomed here. Soliciting others on FB is clear WP:MEAT. --Yopie (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am pretty sure that those that have objected to my edits have done so at Mr. Jamieson's request, given that there hasn't been this much interest in his article until now. But to be certain, a non-partial opinion would be best.

[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wurzeln und Flügel

You might be interested in the IPs listed here. --92.225.81.227 (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work. This is very interesting and I will proceed this to appropriate persons. Thank you again.--Yopie (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal message

Dear Yopie,

Thanks for your comments regarding Saint Lazarus. I am new, and now understand. I have added extra information to the section that refers to the UK Order, of which I am webmaster, Assistant Hospitaller, and Commander of the Winchester Commandery. Since our Order has been inserted here by someone, I felt it should be correct, so have done so. I have inserted the correct title of the organisation, added relevant factual information, and softened the rather strong 'rejects'. In fact the Military Order has had a reconciliation, that is not recorded, and I am unfamiliar with the exact details.

Many Thanks

(MPSeed (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

• Now it is OK. --Yopie (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello user Yopie,

I would like to ask you for reasons of your destroing of page about family Gorges? Actually I'm very anxious about your non-stoping raiding looking for some information which you have under the nose! As I have seen in many discussions before maine, it's not the first time when your accusing people from vandalism while you do so with their sources!

If you're to avaricious and mean to pay and see net books about history of the family, please don't impeach it. I'm afraid that you also don't care about humble and respect too. I would like to remake this page ( ofcourse, it's in some way not the best) and I hope you won't trench on.

Thank you and I wish you good work in good way.

Bironet 12:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Brezbesed

I saw that you have been busy reverting hoaxes and vandalism by this user. I have just blocked this user for 1 week. Let me know if the problem comes back and I may extend the block. Cheers. olivier (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Micronation

Hello Yopie, is very nice of you pointing out that one of my article is not notable. However, I have come to review some other micronation such as Forvik, Lagoan Isles, Valtio, Vikesland and Wy. Their organisation's member is also less than 50, some with only one or two members with no proper references.

After emailing the organisation that you have deleted their name off Wikipedia, they want to ask you if you are from Auckland, NZ? In what perspective you consider is not notable (from your personal point of view, or an organisation with 19 existing members)? If you insist the article I typed with reference is not notable, you might trigger a reverting war by the organisation(Of course this is against Wikipedia Rule, but the organisation have members in HK, AU, Japan and NZ, therefore you might be the only one going against Wikipedia rule). The organisation is also recognize by 3 other micronation organisations.

If you could, please revert it back as I still consider it as notable or you may discuss any micronation matter with me on my talk. Thanks Yopie. --Sukehisashi (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sukehisashi,

notability in Wikipedia is not matter of my personal point of view. There is rule, that Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. For more, please read WP:ORG and discussion here. Simply, is your micronation subject of article in national newspaper or book? If not, is not "notable".--Yopie (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Hey, you commented that my edit was vandalism. I'm guessing it was a mistake, right? Thanks, ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for it, it was my mistake.--Yopie (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

lys

The '''Order of the Fleur de Lys''' was formed in 1439 by [[René I of Naples|René d'Anjou]] from a group of [[Scotland|Scottish]] [[Knight]]s and [[Man-at-arms|Men-at-Arms]], who had come to France to fight the English during the [[Hundred Years War]]. The Scots had fought throughout the conflict at a level surprising regarding the size of their nation. Victorious at the [[Battle of Baugé]] and defeated at the [[Battle of Verneuil|Verneuil]], ''La Grande Armée Écossaise'' had formed a major part of the Franco-Scottish war machine during the early 15th century. Many of their senior leaders became [[Peerage of France|Peers of France]] and held high offices of state, such as the [[Earl of Buchan]] and the [[Earl of Douglas]], who were made [[Constable of France|High Constable of France]] and [[Duke of Touraine]] respectively. The Scots wore the [[Fleur-de-Lys]] on their left breast to show their alliance to France. They fought with [[Joan of Arc]] and René d'Anjou at [[Orléans]]. From this group there eventually emerged a number of companies of fighters both private and official, the [[Scots Guards (France)|Scots Guards]] (''Garde du Roi'' and ''Garde de Corps du Roi''), the ''[[Gendarmerie|Gendarme]]s Ecossais'', the ''Compagnie des Gentilhommes Ecossais'' and also the ''''Ordre du Lys''''. In 1439 Rene d'Anjou granted the order a badge of ''a cross fleury charged with a single Fleur de Lys''. The Order remained a [[Mercenary]] Order and fighting force until approximately 1780 when the remaining troops were absorbed into the British or [[Sweden|Swedish]] Armies, the order becoming a [[charitable organization]] looking after the widows and orphans of members. There is no documentary proof of any continuous connection between this body and the original institution. It is claimed that in about 1840 the Earl of Eglington, then Sovereign Grand Commander, rewrote the statutes transforming the it into a private Order.{{Citation needed|date=July 2008}} == References == {{Reflist}} *{{Cite book | author=Montgomery, H | year=2001 | title=The Montgomery Millennium | publisher=Megatrend | location=Belgrade & London | page=7}}{{Verify credibility|date=December 2010}} *{{Cite book | author=Forbes-Leith | title=The Scots Men-at-Arms & Life Guards of France, vol. (i) | pages=35–47}}{{Failed verification|date=December 2010}} *{{Cite book | author=Ferguson, J. | year=1899 | title=The Scots Brigade 1572-1782 | publisher=T&A Constable | location=Edinburgh}}{{Failed verification|date=December 2010}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Order Of The Fleur De Lys}} [[Category:Military units and formations of the Hundred Years' War]] [[Category:Warfare of the Middle Ages]] [[Category:Middle Ages]] [[Category:1439 establishments]] {{Charity-org-stub}} [[sr:Ред љиљана]]

{{WPBS| {{WikiProject Organizations}} {{WPMILHIST |class=Stub |Medieval-task-force=yes |French=yes |British=yes }} {{WPMA}} {{WPFRANCE}} {{WPSCOTLAND}} {{WPENGLAND}} }} == COI == The article appears to be written by the "Grand Commander" of this order himself. Little or no evidence on the Internet can be found of this order's existence in the 20th century. The author references his own work and gives incomplete information on other referenced titles. :Apologies, removing tag. I certainly did not write this article, but have heard of this order of chivalry historically and presently. I have found it quite easy been to find the referenced works through my local bookseller/library (funnily enough an occasionally better choice than the web for research). Also please sign yoour comments with four tildes (ie ~). Regards [[User:Brendandh|Brendandh]] 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC) == Self-styled order == Somebody is pushing theory, that this Order exist today. But this order is not listed in [http://www.icocregister.org/list2001.htm ICOC register], Burke´s [[World Orders of Knighthood and Merit]], Archbishop H.E. Cardinale ''Orders of knighthood'' or any other scholar literature. Of course, one can find many references about [[Décoration du Lys]] (sometimes called Order of Lys), established in 1814 by [[Louis XVIII]], but this is different award. Goggle book search found nothing about this order in referenced books Forbes-Leith ''The Scots Men-at-Arms & Life Guards'' or in Ferguson ''The Scots Brigade 1572-1782''. So only possible reference is ''The Montgomery Millennium'', which is self published by "Grand Master" himself, a really unreliable source. --[[User:Yopie|Yopie]] ([[User talk:Yopie|talk]]) 14:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC) What part of "private" do you not understand? Scientific literature? You're barking up the wrong tree. [[User:Capsicum Sulfide|Capsicum Sulfide]] ([[User talk:Capsicum Sulfide|talk]]) 04:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC) :* What part in "nothing about this order in referenced books" you not understand?--[[User:Yopie|Yopie]] ([[User talk:Yopie|talk]]) 07:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Strange, that was my criticism of your own POV edits - yet you persist with your edit war. [[User:Capsicum Sulfide|Capsicum Sulfide]] ([[User talk:Capsicum Sulfide|talk]]) 06:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC) *Again, this "Order" is not in any scholar book and previously referenced books not contain anything about this "Order". This looks, like somebody <del>is liar</del> wrong with references....--[[User:Yopie|Yopie]] ([[User talk:Yopie|talk]]) 15:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC) :*Yopie, namecalling/personal insults are prohibited on Wikipedia. You should know better. When you resort to such tactics, you discredit yourself and your argument. [[User:Ubama|Ubama]] ([[User talk:Ubama|talk]]) 23:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC) ::*Sorry for it.--[[User:Yopie|Yopie]] ([[User talk:Yopie|talk]]) 11:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC) *Again: This is [http://books.google.com/books?ei=E9jzTOCYL8XOswac5dClCw&ct=result&id=mnNKAAAAYAAJ&dq=The+Scots+Brigade+1572-1782&q=fleur+de+lys#search_anchor Ferguson, J. (1899). The Scots Brigade 1572-1782 on Google Books] and as everybody can see, zero hits for "Fleur de Lys". And this is [http://books.google.com/books?ei=0djzTJajF8jJswaX582FCw&ct=result&id=4ZRHAAAAYAAJ&dq=Forbes-Leith.+The+Scots+Men-at-Arms+%26+Life+Guards+of+France&q=Fleur+de+Lys#search_anchor Forbes-Leith. The Scots Men-at-Arms & Life Guards of France], again with zero hits. I tried many searches, as "Compagnie des Gentilhommes", sole "Lys" etc., but my search did not match any documents.--[[User:Yopie|Yopie]] ([[User talk:Yopie|talk]]) 17:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Shipton Gorge

I'm totaly suprised, I cannot understand what do you want to prove by your behaviour?! You're throwing doubt on information in article "Shipton Gorge" even though it is sourced from official web of this village! You are really abstrusing person. May it would be better if you were care for something different.--Bironet (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Use talk page of the article, not me.

Use references, not personal attacks. Simply, search for exact page in your source and add it in the article. As you stated in your talk page, you don't have published source for your statements.

Do not use other account Martilouis, you can be blocked for it.

You are reported for copyright violations, take a care.

Do not lie..--Yopie (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WP ANI

Hello Yopie,

There being a report at WP ANI in which you have been mentioned.[12]--Nmate (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Doh

Doh, I had a brain-dead moment while editing Sudetenland and mixed up Balkan & Baltic. Thanks for cleaning that up! --Hutcher (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus and neutrality

Dear Yopie,

May I remind you the heart of Wikipedia's: "Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia, but in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability. Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it."

Unfortunately, you seem unable of reaching consensus to such an extend that it questions your neutrality about some topics. Please beware of such behaviour and help improving Wikipedia instead of trying to manipulate it to match your own perceptions.

Thank you. --Rigaaa (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rigaa,

consensus is normally reached by the discussion on talk page of the article. But you don't use talk page and thus consensus is unreachable. Of course, your use of sock-puppet will be prosecuted, if you don't stop with your edit warring. This is last warning, understand?--Yopie (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Order of Saint Stanislaus. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• You might also do from reading WP:Hitler. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Russian awards

Please, look at Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 7 сентября 2010, the decree of the President of the Russian Federation on September 7, 2010 and also the pictures below. --85.76.118.182 (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankie Ryan

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ledenierhomme. RolandR (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with you, he is too skilled for "newbie"...--Yopie (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Your reverting back Black Army of Hungary article

Yopie, I'm the original creator for this article, please see my article discussion post before you revert it back. I've addressed the peacock terms issue. Again, please ready my input in the Black Army of Hungary discussion page. Thanks. OliverTwist88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

Category removed?

Hi.. Why do you keep removing Category:Orders of knighthood from Royal Order of the Engabu and Royal Order of the Omujwaara Kondo ?? Skibden (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Because Category:Orders of knighthood is container category. Due to its scope, it should contain mainly subcategories and a limited number of directly related pages, as Collar (Order of Knighthood) or Grand Master (order).--Yopie (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hus

You undid a good faith edit I made to the Jan Hus article without a comment in the history, a note in the talk page or a note on my page. (btw, the "early life" section was left with a messed up wikilink). Do you have a citation to prove that the town of Husinec's official name was Husinec at the time of Jan Hus' birth? I have a citation showing it as Husinetz: [13]. Bohemia was well within it's Holy Roman Empire (German) era following their victory at Battle of Lechfeld: Bohemia#P.C5.99emysl_dynasty. The Emperor at the time was a member of the House of Luxembourg. The area was the target of germanization following the Mongol invasion of Europe. It seems reasonable to believe that the German spelling was used. --Hutcher (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Hutcher, take a look to talk page of Husinec, where I say, that according to Otto's encyclopedia, printed in 1890´s, there was not in 1890 any German minority and name is Husinec. Because you added "secondary name", according to WP:V burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, so you must add references. --Yopie (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: Husinec uses Encyclopaedia Britannica ([14]), so this is correct name.--Yopie (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I got bored at 28 links, 8 published books. Did you want me to add these to the Hus article or should I?

• Garland, Henry (1997). The Oxford Companion to German Literature. Oxford University Press, USA; 3 edition. ISBN 978-0198158967. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Anderson, William Ketcham (1944). Protestantism: a symposium. Ayer Co Pub. p. 37. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Catholic Encyclopedia. 1913. ISBN 978-0840731753. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Raza, Moonis. Geographical Dictionary Of The World. p. 859. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• American Heritage Dictionary. The Riverside dictionary of biography. p. 403. ISBN 978-0618493371. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Bisbort, Alan (2003). Famous Last Words: Apt Observations, Pleas, Curses, Benedictions, Sour Notes, Bon Mots, and Insights from People on the Brink of Departur. Pomegranate. p. 47. ISBN 978-0764917387. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• The Houghton Mifflin dictionary of biography. The Houghton Mifflin dictionary of biography. p. 773. ISBN 978-0618252107. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Jacob, H.E. (2007). Six Thousand Years of Bread: Its Holy and Unholy History. Skyhorse Publishing. p. 177. ISBN 978-1602391246. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• http://christiantop500.com/2010/09/john-huss-part-1/
• http://www.oberpfalznetz.de/magazin/1582930-101,1,0.html#top
• http://www.experience-prague.com/culture/default.asp?grp=3&sec=46
• http://www.catholicscripture.net/Triumph_Church/thirteenth.html
• http://www.newsfinder.org/site/readings/jan_hus/
• http://www.zeno.org/Meyers-1905/A/Husinetz
• http://www.uureading.org/sermons/sermon081221.htm
• http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/sheldon/huss.html
• http://www.figuren-modellbau.de/hus-johann.html
• http://wittenberg-door.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-huss-part-1.html
• http://radioharmonifm.com/home/john-hus-martir-yang-dibakar-hidup-hidup-oleh-kepausan/
• http://roland-buchwald.de/Tschechien.htm
• http://population.mongabay.com/population/czech-republic/3074686/husinec
• http://www.tageo.com/index-e-ez-v-00-d-m772480.htm
• http://mapsof.net/husinec
• http://www.cathtruth.com/centuries/13thcent.htm
• http://www.celysvet.cz/mesto.php?n=Husinetz&p=1339#lat=49.06670&lon=13.98330&zoom=9
• http://www.meteoblue.com/en_GB/point/forecast/tab/f/7564/c/cz/b/pictocastDaily
• http://en.tixik.com/search/?s=Husinetz
• http://www.geographic.org/geographic_names/name.php?uni=-772482&fid=1729&c=czech_republic

--Hutcher (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Good Faith is Not A Joke

Interesting that you think that Good Faith is a joke (evidence the edit summary removing my Good Faith posting to you). You can do what you want on your talk page, including removing comments others leave. Nevertheless, reverting a comment asking for you to show "Good Faith" on the basis that it is a "joke" is really a show of bad faith. In light of our issue, I have explained at Talk:Dynastic order of knighthood, in great detail, the basis for my concern that the footnote that I wrote citing the International commission for orders of chivalry contain language clarifying that despite the possible implications of the term "International Commission" the International commission for orders of chivalry is in fact a private organization. You have cited the ICOC yourself in various articles so you clearly knew that they self-identify as a private organization and that the members are self-selected. Yet when I put that in the footnote you removed it as "OR" which means "Original Research." Even if you somehow never looked at the website yourself before citing it as the source for the article on Self-styled orders that your originated, Good Faith would have required you to visit the ICOC cite before declaring my information "Original Research." When I restored the information and explained in the edit summary its source, you then removed it again claiming it was "unsourced POV." What type of "Good Faith" were you showing in declaring my edit "unsourced" when my edit summary stated the source in direct response to your earlier edit? How is it POV to describe the ICOC as a private organization? Is it a governmental body? In numerous places on its website, ICOC itself states: "The Commission is a private body."[15] Is being a private organization a negative? Surely most organizations in the world are private. How can that fact be "unsourced" when, as I pointed out in the edit summary, the very source I was citing contains that language.[16] How is the fact that the members are self-selecting unsourced, original research, or POV? Again, the ICOC itself states it chooses its own members (which must mean that the existing members decide on the renewal of their terms and the addition of others).[17]] The ICOC seems to be very proud of its independence, why is pointing that out POV? If you disliked the words I used, you could revise them. If you thought the clarification of the ICOC's status as a private organization was unnecessary, you could have removed it on that basis. To twice delete the same information for reasons that are clearly at odds with the facts shows a lack of Good Faith on your part. What am I suppose to assume about you in light of this situation? You edited my material giving "-OR" as an edit summary. I responded by restoring the material and explained why it was not "OR" in the edit summary ("Not OR: ICOC's own website says that it is a private organization whose members are self-chosen. This information helps users weigh the value of ICOC's opinion supporting rights of ex-Royal families.")You then removed the material again claiming it was "unsourced POV." Was I supposed to assume that you did not know that the footnote we were talking about was a citation to the ICOC's own website so that information in footnote about the source obviously came from the source itself? If you were concerned about or unclear about the source of the information, you could have source tagged it. I edited Dynastic order of knighthood in order to improve the article. You must have agreed that my work was an improvement since you restored 99% of it after I reverted my own edits in response to your claim that I was pushing a POV. What type of Good Faith did you demonstrate toward me by your edits and your edit summaries? Do you seriously believe that I spend hours adding sources to the article just so I could push a POV against the ICOC in one of 46 footnotes? Who besides the two of us has even read the 46 footnotes? Yet, even after I restored the language you deleted, addressing your complaint and clearly showing that I thought it was important, instead of starting a discussion about your concerns, you just removed it again declaring it "unsourced POV." I did not jump into the article and add lots of unsourced material. I spend hours adding sources for what was already there. How is it Good Faith for you to assume that all that work was to push an unsourced POV in one footnote? Was it Good Faith on your part to remove the same language twice, even after I tried to address your concern, without opening a discussion? Normally, I would not bother with a posting like this. Since you obviously missed my attempt to draw attention to your own behavior in a subtle way, I felt the need to make things clear. I do not go around playing tit for tat. I do not stick a template on your page since you stuck one on mine. Nor do a troll articles looking for fights. While we are on the subject of you, since we began this little dispute, I did look at some of your other edits to see with what type of person I was dealing. Do you even realize the number of unsourced statement you have added to articles? Have you even thought about the fact that your assertions as to who has the right to start or continue an order of chilvary is a POV? In fact, you have repeatedly edited articles to claim that certain "orders" are legitimate whiler deleting others as false without providing sources. I do not joke. Seriously, you need to think about Good Faith (and POV) yourself instead of just accusing others. Finally, as you could clearly see at the top of my talk page it states that the first entry was made on "18 October 2008" so what type of Good Faith were you showing in giving me a Welcome template and assuming that I was new and did not know the rules? This is the last time I will address you on this topic. (Before you ask, no I am not stalking you, I visited your page to see if you had commented here on my statement on the Dynastic order of knighthood talk page. I do not intend to visit your page again.) Johnwilliammiller (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear John, lets summarise:

1. your very rude note with threat of deletion and personal attack
2. next was my message about good faith
3. and next was your tit for tat message

Clearly, you started with threads, personal attacks, shouting, continued with "revenge" message and now you are stalking me with ad hominem attacks. At first I take it as "bad joke", but now I know, that you take it on personal level. I must warn you, that this will be not tolerated.--Yopie (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Silesia as part of HRE

First of all: I change the names of the dukes and duchies because of this rule:

"For example, we have articles called Istanbul, Dubrovnik, Volgograd and Saint Petersburg, these being the modern names of these cities, although former names (Constantinople, Ragusa, Stalingrad or Leningrad) are also used when referring to appropriate historical periods (if any), including such article names as Battle of Stalingrad and Sieges of Constantinople; not to mention separate articles on Constantinople and Byzantium on the historic cities on the site of modern Istanbul - or part of it. It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different language to indicate cultural or political dominance. For example, Szczecin is often written as Stettin (the German name) for the period before 1945, likewise Gdańsk is called Danzig (the detailed decisions at Talk:Gdansk/Vote apply to that dispute; they are older than this page)." NCGN#Use_modern_names

I don't change them because of a official language but because the names have to reflect the cultural dominance. The cultural dominance in Lower and Middle Silesia (and only there!) after 1400 was German. This change and the transition to Bohemia/HRE happened roughly at the same time (the German citizenry was a major driving force in the decision of some dukes), that's why I mention both Bohemia and the HRE. The switch was an indication of Silesias changed society, which had a closer connection to Bohemia than to Poland.

Regarding the official language: I'm no expert in the history of Bohemia, but I doubt that a official language existed. All secular, official documents in Lower and Middle Silesia switch to German between 1350 and 1400, the language of the common people. The Prague chancellery documented in German, after all the Prager Kanzleisprache (Prague chancellery language) was immensely important for the development of German. Czech however was the dominant language in Upper Silesia from the 15th to the 17th century, which reflected the cultural dominance of Slavic/Polish people. You can read more about the languages used in Silesian documents here: http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/document193.html#tocto4 (sadly only in German, but there is a French version somewhere too, if this helps). Karasek (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Issue related to Great Moravia edits

I can't read minds, so I don't know exactly what you or Fakirbakir are thinking. However, {{:AGF|]] exists for a reason, and I plan to use it. It is entirely plausible that Fakirbakir is concerned about an unsourced statement in the lead, and feels it should be removed until it is sourced. It is entire;y possible you completely agree that an unsourced statement in the lead can be problematic (if anyone questions it), but feel the better approach is to leave the statement in temporarily with a citation needed template so that readers and editors who might know of a source can weight in. I assume you saw two reverts and wished to warn Fakirbakir so they could avoid a third. It is entirely possible Fakirbakir was well aware that the revert count was at two, and had no plans to revert again. In which case, a notice with a big red stop sign talking about an edit war might not have come across as being helpful, even if it was intended to be. It seems possible that Fakirbakir is unhappy about the existence of the warning on the page, as it might be viewed by others as a negative indication. Assuming you meant it simply as a warning, and it is clear that the warning has been read, I think it would be a positive step for you to remove the warning form the page. Removing the warning isn't a signal that the warning was in error, but would be a good faith step to assure Fakirbakir that it was merely a warning. I have absolutely no authority to insist on anything, I'm just suggesting something that might be helpful.--SPhilbrickT 22:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. This message was sent to notify you about this and this ongoing discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

The original title of Nmate's thread was <<Your message makes me "ponder">>

Later edit: The below message was a reply to this comment, which was in meantime deleted by his author (Nmate)

I saw my name mentioned here, so it is not inappropriate to intervene. My personal opinion is that User:Yopie 's level of English knnowledge is not low at all, but even if it was, this was not an impediment if he had to say something relevant in an eventual ArbCom discussion about me. Everyone is welcome here on English Wikipedia, although they are able to contribute with a basic or an intermediate level of English (as long as they can make constructive edits and improve articles)

It is good be polite and lenient with anyone, no matter how bad they speak English. Nmate, I'd like to remind you that you yourself had problems with communication in this language in the past:

- A user complained that edits were written in a very bad English and it was sometimes really difficult to figure out what exactly you meant

- you were said to have "some problems with language barriers"

- you were asked to "use a dictionary: consecquence, elinametid and expropietid are not English words"

- someone admitted that he "doesn't understand your English"

So this is an extra reason for not being mischievous with this kind of users (Iaaasi (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC))

Thank you Iaasi, you are welcomed here.--Yopie (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on my talk page. But I have to add that I disagree with the way you reacted to Nmate's behaviour. We should stay calm and remain civil (WP:CIVIL) no matter how aggressive are other users are (Iaaasi (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC))

Notification

Hi, it seems that User:Nmate has filed a report against you: [18]

As User:Nmate did not respect the rule "When reporting a user here, inform them of this, possibly in conjunction with the uw-3RR warning template", I am doing this for him. (Iaaasi (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

German occupation of Czechoslovakia

Hello, some time ago you've asked me for help on German Occupation of Czechoslovakia. I might be able to take a look at it now. What are the particular issue you would like me to concentrate on? Unfortunately I don't really have time now to be working on the article as a whole.

Shall I address you in English, or Czech? Have a nice day Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories "Historical regions"

Please see this and especially this talk page. Your opinions are very welcome. Thanks! A hezký den. ;) --Iaroslavvs (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian nobility

Thank you for your greeting.

Concerning the provided references in the article Norwegian nobility, the following should be clarified in order to remove possible misunderstandings: Although the name Lokalhistoriewiki reveals that this site is based on the Wiki concept, there happens to be a separate section called Leksikon, which means encyclopædia in English. The articles in the Leksikon section are not user-editable, but unchanged transferred from the printed encyclopædia Norsk historisk leksikon (English: Norwegian Historical Encyclopædia). One may view this by visiting e.g. this article in the Leksikon section.

Otherwise, Lokalhistoriewiki (English: Wiki of Local History) is managed by Norsk Lokalhistorisk Institutt (English: Norwegian Institute of Local History), which is an institution under the Royal Ministry of Culture.

I hope that this was clarifying and that one will remove the reversions. However, I believe that two-three of the references lead to the general section of Lokalhistoriewiki, and these may of course be removed.

Greetings,

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I've noticed that you've been reverting a number of edits i've done, primarily related to Germany and Germans. It seems that you are dedicated to fighting vandalism, which is good, but it's uneccesary to wholesalely revert every edit because of minor errors or misunderstandings. It's kinda frustating when one has spent quite some time editing in good faith. Alphasinus (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

JEDLIK

Jedlik's nationality was Hungarian. Nationality is a political term, it is based on self-determination. Don't confuse nationality with ethnicity. Ethnicity is fact, and it isn't based on self determination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokler (talk • contribs) 10:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I'm not really a specialist on the migration of Germans from Eastern Europe after WWW2 so if you notice some errors it would be alright if you could fix it. Alphasinus (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, simply this [19] is not in source. Tschüs --Yopie (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Universities

I've discussed this matter on the talk page and no reasonable reason has been given as to why Madrasas weren't as (or more) serious academic institutions at the time the first Universities were founded in Europe. If you wish to give a reason please do so there and not just revert my edits. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edits

I am generally concerned with your approach to editing. Some of your edits are just needlessly belligerent, others are outright unacceptable.

• this summary, asking another editor to "learn EN grammar", where by "EN" you presumably you refer to the ISO 639-1 code for the English language, is a good illustration. You have a point in objecting to the previous edit, but you do so on completely mistaken grounds, and in a manner that only invites further edit wars. The fact of the matter is that "German Genocide" isn't even a term. If it existed, it would refer to a Genocide against the Germans, but since no such genocide took place, the term itself isn't encyclopedic. This has nothing to do with "EN grammar" and everything with history.

• this edit is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH. Never mind that the entire genetics-cruft was misplaced in the Rurik article, and would belong in the Rurikids one, suggesting that "Y-haplogroup N1c1 is typical for Finno-Ugrian people" in the context of genetic studies that have nothing to do with Finno-Ugric peoples and without basing it on the source you are discussing is unacceptable. You want to discuss N1c1? Go to Haplogroup_N_(Y-DNA)#Haplogroup_N1c1. Where we can read that this particular group reaches "frequencies of approximately 60% among Finns and approximately 40% among Latvians and Lithuanians". Your suggestion implies that the statement "if you are a Finn, you are likely to carry haplogroup N1c1" translates to "if you carry haplogroup N1c1, you are likely to be of Finno-Ugric ancestry", that's a simple logical fallacy

  if 63% of Finns and 16% of Russians carry haplogroup N, is a carrier of haplogroup N more likely to be a Finn or a Russian? Answer: a Russian, because these figures translate to 23 million Russians vs. 3 million Finns who all carry this haplogroup, besides many millions of other people throughout Eurasia. And this is about modern populations and tells you literally nothing about the prevalence of this haplogroup in the 9th century. Our policies are in place precisely to defend our articles against editors such as you who are prone to falling for such fallacies.

--dab (𒁳) 13:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hello, I can notice, that your edits are without edit summaries or without any explanation on talk page and are controversial at the best, with strong POV pushing. --Yopie (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit deletion of May 4

Hi could you please explain your deletion of my suggested further reading. thanks Brukner (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, if you mean this experiment with inserting Example.jpg, please understand, that for experiments is sandbox.--Yopie (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I think there may have been an error or misunderstanding. I was attempting to add a Further Reading section related to the topic, there were no images in my material. I sandboxed it and checked it very carefully. Hmmmm. My appologies for any confusion or error. I will try again. Brukner (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Treaty of Eger

I have rolled back your latest revert because it is confusing to use modern place names when describing historic events in an era that used different names. My solution was to use the original, correct historical name and put the modern name which you supplied in brackets. I have also carefully kept your other changes, including your helpful category correction. If you believe this to be a real issue, let's continue the debate on the talk page before making any more changes to the article. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Universities

if you care about not including madrasahs make a case on the talk page... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Royal and Hashemite Order of the Pearl

Hi, please before deciding if any information is relevant would be nice to discuss, within a week I will post ICOC recognition for Order, so there wont be any confusion, thank you for your attention. Just to let you know Royal House of Ethiopia, Royal House of Egypt, Royal Confraternity of Saint Teotonio and also Burke's Peerage recognizes this Order RDAndrew (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So please, first send reliable sources and references and then you can add this Order.--Yopie (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There was some confusion about the lineage in Sulu. Well, government documents have come up and show the true line of succession. The last de facto sovereign Sultan was Jamalul Kiram II. He was fully recognized as the then reigning Sultan and this manifested in the signing of the Carpenter agreement, The Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo ceded all its sovereignty and Royal rights over Sulu to the American colonial government by signing the so-called Carpenter agreement in 1915. By this act, the Sultan ratified and recognized the sovereignty of the United States over his territories in the modern Philippines. The Sultan was reduced to a “titular head of the Mohammedan Church in the Sulu Archipelago subject to the same limitations which apply to the supreme spiritual head of all religions existing on American territory.” He died in 1936. After the death of Sultan Jamalul Kiram II, his crown prince and younger brother Raja Muda Datu Mawalil Wasit was elected by the Ruma Bechara and ascended the throne. But, Sultan Wasit was poisoned, before he and his Crown Prince, Raja Muda Datu Esmail Kiram I., were formally enthroned. www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757014,00.html http://www.chanrobles.com/acts/actsno3118.html In 1939 the Session Court of North Borneo of the British Colonial government under Judge McKaskie ruled, that the territory of North Borneo belongs to the Sultanate of Sulu. The heirs of Sultan Mawalil Wasit were identified by name as the sole heirs and successor to the territory and as being entitled to receive the annual cession money. From 1936 to 1950, two rivals, Sultan Ombra Amilbangsa and Sultan Abirin reigned the Sultanate and the lawful and legitimate heir to the throne, Crown Prince Esmail Kiram I needed 14 years until he ascended the throne in 1950. He was 21 years old upon his fathers death and considered not strong enough to reign in times of war and rebellion against the US colonial forces. In 1962, Philippine President Macapagal accepted a power of attorney from Sultan Esmail Kiram I to pursue the sovereignty claim regarding the territories of North Borneo. Although disputed especially by Malaysian scholars, this official act by the Republic of the Philippines lawfully recognized that the Sultanate still owned de jure sovereign and Royal rights over the North Borneo territory in the modern state of Malaysian Sabah. At least up to 1962, as the power of attorney ceded the de jure sovereignty and the Royal rights to the Philippine government: “The territory of North Borneo and the full sovereignty, title and dominion are hereby ceded…” Since 1962, the office of the Sultan is that of an ecclesiastical leader, as described in the Carpenter Agreement and the rank and title is an honorific only. The Sultan is considered by the government as a traditional leader of the indigenous Tausug people in the Southern Philippines. However, the Philippine government went on to formally recognize the Sultan. In 1969, President Marcos accepted confirmation of the transfer of the sovereignty rights over Sabah from Sultan Esmail Kiram I. Upon the death of Sultan Esmail Kiram I., President Marcos formally recognized Sultan Esmail Kiram I.`s official heir and successor, his eldest son Sultan Mahakutta Kiram (http://books.google.de/books?id=xLweAAAAMAAJ&q=mahakutta&dq=mahakutta&hl=de&ei=K27aTffrJ8bEsgbM7qD4Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw) as the new Sultan of Sulu by issuing Memorandum Order 427. (http://www.royalsultanateofsulu.org/#!hrh-raja-muda) It states: "Whereas, the Government has always recognised the Sultanate of Sulu as the legitimate claimant to the historical territories of the Republic of Philippines". President Marcos established a coordination committee and the government officially supported and sponsored Sultan Mahakuttas coronation ceremony in 1974. He also included Sultan Mahakutta Kiram in EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 429 (http://www.chanrobles.com/executiveorders/1974/executiveorderno429-1974.html). Upon request of the President, Sultan Mahakutta Kiram send a list of members of the leadership of the Sultanate to be recognized by the President under said Memorandum Order and the confirmation of the legitimacy of Sultan Mahakutta Kiram from the Ruma Bechara (the Sultanates parliament) of Sultan Esmail Kiram I. (http://www.royalsultanateofsulu.org/#!hrh-raja-muda) Sultan Mahakutta Kiram died in 1986, his eldest son and official heir and successor as recognized under Memorandum Order 427 is Datu Raja Muda Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram. “After the death of Sultan Mahakutta Kiram, the Philippine government failed to formally recognize a new Sultan. Mahakutta`s Crown Prince Muedzul Lail Kiram, the heir to the throne according to the line of succession as recognized by the Philippine governments from 1915-1986, was 20 years old upon his father`s death. Due to his young age, he failed to claim the throne in a time of political instability in the Philippines that led to the peaceful revolution and removal of President Marcos. The gap in the leadership was filled by pretenders of rival branches. Therefore, the following Sultans were not crowned with the support of the Philippine government nor did receive a formal recognition from the federal government like their predecessors, until 1986. However, the Philippine government decided to deal with one or more of these pretenders regarding issues concerning the Sultanates affairs, appointed them into positions in the government or received them on a case to case basis and granted therefore a de facto recognition to their reign.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sultans_of_Sulu The brother of Esmail Kiram I., Datu Punjungan, was crown prince regent until the time, when the son of Sultan Esmail I would become 15 years old. Then, Prince Mahakutta became the new crown prince and heir to the throne. There are several official documents, signed by Esmail I and Punjungan. None of them was signed by Punjungan as Raja Muda. He always signed as a Datu, so he was not formally the Raja Muda. These documents are from 1939 and 1959. Due to questions of copyright, I do not know whether these may be uploaded. If they are considered copyright-free, RAndres, can upload all necessary documents. Mahakutta reigned from 1974-1986 as Sultan, his crown prince and lawful heir was Muedzul Lail Kiram. Although having been lawfully replaced as crown prince of the Sultanate, Punjungan had started to contest the reign of Sultan Mahakutta Kiram and was crowned a rival Sultan in 1980. Upon the death of Sultan Mahakutta, it was Jamalul Kiram III, who, as son and heir to Punjungan Kiram climbed the throne. Jamalul III was followed by his crown prince Esmail Kiram II and crown prince Agbimuddin Kiram, who are still recognized by the Provincial government of Sulu as the current government of the Sultanate. Since 1986, a similar situation takes place as it was during World War II and pretenders occupied the throne, being not the legitimate heirs and successors according to the succession rules of the Sultanate. Datu Raja Muda Muedzul Lail Kiram is the lawful and legitimate heir to the throne, as crown prince to Sultan Mahakutta Kiram, the last Sultan to be formally recognized by the Philippine government as the legitimate Sultan and successor to Sultan Esmail Kiram I. Mohammad Akijal Atti, Aguimuddin Abirin, Punjungan Kiram, Jamalul Kiram III and Esmail Kiram II filled in the gap of the leadership, however none of them was formally recognized by decree of the Philippine government as Sultan of Sulu. The reason is simple, Memorandum Order 427 still is in force and this makes Datu Raja Muda Muedzul Lail Kiram to be still the only officially and formally recognized heir to the throne of the Sultanate.

Therefore, a clear line of succession exists up this day, fully and formally recognized by the Republic of the Philippines.

Regarding the other claimants from other families, let me cite a nice statement, Dr. Cox said (as published in the May 2011 newsletter of the International Commission of Nobility and Royalty): "...once a [usurping] king was recognised as having acquired de jure authority --- a combination of legal claim, de facto rule, acquiescence and so on --- the former [the deposed] king (and his heir) cease to have any legal claim whatsoever." This topic will be discussed in detail in a new book that will probably be published at the end of the year, written by the lawyer of the Imperial House of Austria. What Dr. Cox says makes perfectly sense. Otherwise, any kingdom suffering from rivalries could never establish a new and clear line of succession without being heavily contested by rival families. This statement should not be understood that other families loose their de jure rights. But, they become just pretenders to the new lawful King or Queen whose lineage becomes the fully reigning one. It can be seen also in Sulu, where the US and Philippine governments accepted transfer of sovereignty only from the reigning Sultan. None of the other rival families who uphold claims did co-sign it as they do not have the same powers or authority as the ruling family. They are considered inferior, one could even say: as their subjects, in fact. They are not the law-making authority anymore. Therefore, the Kiram family is in any way the true heirs and successor of the Sultanate RDAndrew (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Royal House of Sulu, please visit it again, as I have added copies of original documents cerified by Philippine Government, which clearly are showing that Raja Muda Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram of Sulu is the legitimate head of the Royal House of Sulu, please remove your adds!!!! RDAndrew (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

MacCarthy Mór

I am going to contact the new claimant and if I get a specific reference to a pedigree plus other information will go ahead and put him in an article or two myself. Years ago there was another male line descendant mentioned as a possible claimant, an accountant living in England, and he can be mentioned too. We will see what if any relationship they might have. Nora lives (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for care. This new claimant have only freeweb pages with minimum informations and without any reliable references. --Yopie (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance. He may not be wealthy or very experienced online, either of which may explain a few things. Nora lives (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Legitimists

Hi Yopie. I generally support your position on the merits, but I question your use of the word "vandalism" in your revert. The edit you reverted was clearly not vandalism, but someone pursuing a content dispute. Name-calling undermines the possibility of eventually reaching consensus, which should be our goal however out-of-reach it may appear. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Lord of the Manor

Lord of the Manor - Please tell me how putting in additional information about this title, in that they were considered part of the Landed Gentry was vandalism? I would be really interested in your unbiased answer as it perplexes me as to how you have come to think to the contrary. If you have such moderation privileges it would be wise of you to understand what you are actually doing and not just fanciful exercises of power when it suits you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.88.211 (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please, read official manual of British Government Passport_policy_-_Titles_included_on_passports: "A Manorial title (i.e. Lord of the Manor) is not a title of nobility and may be bought and sold by the owner of the property to which the title refers." About your question - deletion of sourced, reliable informations are considered as vandalism. BTW: there are many fraudsters with titles, so we need this article referenced.--Yopie (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Larmenius Charter

Please explain how the Larmenius Charter is itself a self-styled order of chivalry (as the category states), when it purports to be a document related to the actual Knights Templar. MSJapan (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It can be argued that the Larmenius Charter served as the starting point for the creation of Fabre-Palaprat's order. Without it, the Order would not have been founded, and since it's not a genuine Templar document it fits into the self-styled category. Lung salad (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"It can be argued" is not the same as "is" - I can argue the moon is made of green cheese, but plenty of reliable sources will prove me wrong. So is this speculation or fact? MSJapan (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's say it's factual that the Larmenius Charter and Fabre-Palaprat's Order were cognate, and that both fit into the self-styled category, and that the majority endorse this. Lung salad (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Outing

I have deleted this edit of yours, in which you outed User:Jvbq. This is considered a form of harassment. See WP:OUTING. Consider this your only warning. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• I´m sorry for it.It will never happens again. --Yopie (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Kings of Redonda

The Actual king of Redonda is Javier Marias and only englsih people change the history because they don't want that a spaniard could be the king of Redonda. You can find many reference from different countries that the actual king is Xavier I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guttyvic (talk • contribs) 10:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Any sources? --Yopie (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably you should use a neutral POV or use reliable sources. Now the article is not neutral. In the article, Javier is not the king and there isn't any references about his possibility about to be the king. You can't say that one is the king without reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guttyvic (talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So you deleted other claimants...--Yopie (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I delete the wrong information. There's not any reliable reference about that king so, why is it possible to write something without a reference? Why is it possible to write an article using your own POV? 188.76.245.228 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Redonda

The reference 3 inthe article about the Kingdom of Redonda doesn't exist

188.76.245.228 (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration request regarding user:Smith2006

There is an Arbitration request regarding user:Smith2006. As one of the editors that has reverted his recent changes, you may wish to comment. Thank you.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for info.--Yopie (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

MacCarthy Mór (again)

Our discussion you now have archived. I have successfully contacted a rep/associate/relative of Liam MacCarthy for information, have been provided with his pedigree, have been provided with sources and references, and am perfectly satisfied... so now it is a matter of what language to use because he and his family remain to be recognized by the Irish government, of course because of the Terence MacCarthy scandal. What I am going to do is ask an admin or two among other colleagues about how to deal with the situation. The family want a presence here and because they have a real pedigree we have to give it to them. I have started with giving them a subsection in Gaelic nobility of Ireland. Nora lives (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Expulsion Article

Hi, You read Czech. Can you add material to the article from Czech sources. The current article is biased toward German sources that are IMO not at all neutral. I hope to get the new German book by Hahn soon. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

Please tell tell how i violated copyrights on druzhina... Alphasinus (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you also quote your source and tell where it says that druzhina is derived from "droog"? Alphasinus (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Your problem is, that you are uneducated in Slavic studies and general history. You use only Encyclopaedia Britannica and what you randomly find on Google books. Ad copyvio, please compare wording EB and your edit - it is same. BTW: your nonsense about Bourbons as German Franks is nonsense. They did not speak Frankish, they did not feel as Franks and they did not claim "Frankish nationality". Please, if you can edit wiki in scholar topics, go to uni first. Thank you for understanding. --Yopie (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1)Well, the man they claimed founded the dynasty was at least Frankish.

2)It's better to use Britannica than to use no sources at all...

3)Is being uneducated in Slavic studies a violation of copyright? Alphasinus (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe was founder of Bourbons Frank, but Louis XIV or Juan Carlos not. --Yopie (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of World Orders of Knighthood and Merit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World Orders of Knighthood and Merit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Orders of Knighthood and Merit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Decstop (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you want....

...to report the vandal for 3RR or should I? Also there main account is User:Dbpjmuf and that account has been blocked before in the pase a few times for edit warring. - dwc lr (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think, that this IP is his sockpuppet too. I will report him a he will be blocked, probably indef, but this take some time. I you want, please report him for 3RR, I´m busy. Thanks--Yopie (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Respect for other editors

Please don't call Aaemn784 "Mr. Montagu." Gerardw (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• It was bad joke, sorry for it.--Yopie (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:Fastily#Why.3F -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Legitimist line page

I believe the word "Head" is synonymous with senior member. As the senior-most member of the House of Bourbon, Prince Louis of Anjou is the Head of the House of Bourbon. Emerson 07 (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Other "Heads" of the House of Bourbon, if any, are Head only of their respective branches, such as Juan Carlos (Head of the House of Bourbon-Spain), Henri (Head of the House of Bourbon-Orleans), etc.Emerson 07 (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

You were mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_would_like_to_report_the_activities_of_some_editors_.E2.80.93_ethnic_abuse_and_edit_warring_from_the_side_of_eastern_european_editors --Samofi (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Dohezarsersdah

Dohezarsersdah is not new to wikipedia. He's been blanking his page for a while now. More serious warnings are in order.--Louiedog (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI I'd say. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the info.--Yopie (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've warned him also at this point. I've also requested protection of Theocracy. You're at three reverts at this point, so I'd leave it alone now until an admin can step in. Calabe1992 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will leave article till this will be solved.--Yopie (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dohezarsersdah taken to ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Calabe1992 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Per WP:SPS, what evidence is there that François Velde has ever had "work in the relevant field ... published by reliable third-party publications"? He has written about some interesting topics within his primary field of expertise,[20] but I don't see anything on heraldry or royalty.   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Any response?   Will Beback  talk  11:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN discussion that isn't likely to go anywhere

It appears you have not been notified by the OP, template AN-notice: Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Monty₈₄₅ 23:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Alleged advertising

I deny having added self-promoting material or advertisement to the page Micronation. Could you please tell me what I did to that page that supposedly counts as self-promotion? Uberstadt (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're referring to. I did not add that link; somebody else did. My edit was getting rid of underscores in the text of the article due to improper link formatting. Again, I did not add that link. Before accusing me again, please look at who actually made the edit that created questionable material. Uberstadt (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for it. --Yopie (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Order of Merit

Waite a minute chill! I don't think that you have the right to speak about explanation! I wrote the biggest explanation of all time. Why to have all these refferences as Leigh Rayment is wildely considered by wikipedia as a reliable source? You know that I am right but you are anti-IP IPs are people too!--46.246.230.229 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but "better look" is not argument, especially if you feel "ugly" about refs in the list. There are many similar lists and this is commonly accepted.--Yopie (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Komenský

I am curious removing note Komenský was "Czech" teacher is reported as vandalism. In my opinion, it is misleading to refer Komenský as “Czech” teacher. He was born and part of his life spent in The Margrave of Moravia ( a member state of The Czech Kingdom, part of The Holy Roman Empire). As is correctly noted in the same wiki article, he described himself as "Moravus ego natione, lingua Bohemus". Yes, he recognize his primary language as a czech language (but wrote mainly in latin). But language is not determinative for nationality. Moreover, nationality was not clearly defined in seventeen century and its definition is not unequivocal even in this days. During all his life he recognize himself as a Moravian and Moravia as his homeland. This fact he explicitly demonstrates several times in his writings. Based on this facts, I guess referring Komenský as "Czech" teacher is misleading and should be deleted as not neutral. 90.178.30.242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.30.242 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, please use page of the article, where is my reply.--Yopie (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Danish Crown Regalia

Don't revert if you don't know what you're reverting. The link is not okay (it points to a guide about cultural places in Copenhagen, because the site has undergone a radical change sice the link was established), as it no longer points to a description about the lions guarding King Solomons throne. And if you look carefully at my edit, you'll see I added a Wiki link to an article about King Solomon and the 12 lions guarding it, which itself has references to biblical sources, which is a whole lot bettter! Thanks. Meewam (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for it, with this explaining is this OK, I misunderstood your summary "dead link".--Yopie (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No - not exactly a good edit summery, I agree. Sorry for that. Meewam (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:89.100.150.198 reported

29 User talk:89.100.150.198 reported by User:Unokodak (Result: blocked one week) Best regards Unokodak (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I dislike to say it, but thanks. You forced me to see things that indeed could be improved. The article's first section is now more focused on the subject.

 — Breadbasket 05:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Dictators

At least give me an explanation of how I cannot place Josip Broz-Tito and Slobodan Milosevic additionally as dictators? Explain. 68.202.26.86 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Moravian

Dear Yopie, is attached to this version, as this is objective and neutral edition. The question is not a stupid chauvinistic theory (for ex. the Wendish question or Međimurian question), and i objective linguists in this question. I think now it's a outcry, that the census in 2011 showed half million Moravians. For ex. Iaroslav was not objective and researched between my private things from the internet, but this is outrageous. Doncsecz^talk 17:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

POV at YPF

Hi, Yopie:

I appreciate your interest in YPF.

Please realize that this user, BobRayner, has been insistingly adding op ed pieces as "sources" for his own opinions on the recent events at the firm. This violates NPOV, V, RS. There are a number of quotes from Spanish and Argentine officials directly concerned with the issue, and these are, of course, cited.

What Mr.Rayner has been inserting into the article are opinions and innuendo written in hostile editorials and as such were blatant POV; they were published in the Economist as opinion pieces and have no place in this article or any other.

I have informed Mr. Rayner of these concerns, and from a few of his past edits, I know he knows better. These include attempting to quote "Conservapedia" when his source did not mention the site at all and numerous instances in which he deleted sourced material because it quoted a mere opinion. I also shared my concerns with these edits on the talk page.

Let me know if you have any questions.

My Regards, Sherlock4000 (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me your reasoning in revising my edit of the Empire page? Japan fails to satisfy the very criteria laid out at the top of the page itself. While it has passed into convention that The Japanese King is referred to as an Emperor in English (due to a common error in the translation of the Japanese word 天皇　Tennou, which specifically refers to the monarchical head of Japan and carries no connotations of Empire, the word Emperor would be better represented in Japanese as 皇帝　koutei), he has no Empire to speak of. By the admission of former Japanese Prime Ministers, the Japanese see their nation as a mono-ethnic and mono-cultural entity. As the head of state of such a country, King Akihito can by no means be considered the Emperor of the Japanese Empire, which ceased to exist following the second World War.

Thank you, Steezeboots

(Steezeboots (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC))

Read WP:OR for more.--Yopie (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Noble Ranks

Are the titles Crown Prince or Crown Princess noble ranks? Keivan.f^Talk 07:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

about Otto von HAbsburg

Hi. i deleted a phrase in the article of Otto von Habsburg about if he had declined to be the king of Spain in 1961 but you decided to reverse my action. I'm Spanish and i had never heard such a story. I have looked for this man's obituary in the three spanish papers of reference and in none of them it is said that. Isn't a bit strange?

http://elpais.com/diario/2011/07/05/necrologicas/1309816801_850215.html http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2011/07/04/internacional/1309766541.html http://hemeroteca.abc.es/nav/Navigate.exe/hemeroteca/sevilla/abc.sevilla/2011/07/05/050.html

here is the New York Times obituary

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/world/europe/05hapsburg.html

I think that phrase should be erased. Do it if i have convinced you. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castingdiego (talk • contribs) 02:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

'Kings' in HRE

I have deleted your reference to 'king' again as there were no other 'kings' in the Holy Roman Empire except for the King of Bohemia (who was an elector himself and ranked the same with the other electors) and the Emperor himself (who was effectively King of the Romans as well as Emperor).

The King of Prussia (from 1772, before this it was King 'in' Prussia) was allowed only because the territorial designation of 'Prussia' lay outside the boundaries of the Reich.

The later kings, such as Bavaria and Wurttemberg, were all created after the abolition of the Empire in 1806. Ds1994 (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that this is inadequatly explained and documented in the article: you acknowledge that there were three rulers in the Holy Roman Empire who held the title of king -- 1. Habsburg: Emperor's heir-apparent and/or the Emperor Elect (Rome); 2. Habsburg: King of Bohemia; and 3. Hohenzollern: King in (later of) Prussia. That's too many exceptions to declare that the kingly title wasn't recognized within the Empire. Better to avoid that statement and explain the three exceptions clearly. FactStraight (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

By way of introduction, I am User:Brendan_Oisin, a relative newcomer to Wikipedia (WP). I respectfully request your guidance.

This is intended to initiate suggestion for a change to an article with which I believe you are associated - "Pretender" (and more specifically, its section of "List of current pretenders"). Within that list, my suggestion pertains to the Ireland sub-section, and the addition of Liam Trant MacCarthy Mór, Prince of Desmond, to the current listing of pretenders to Gaelic-Irish historic monarchies.

Rather than make the direct edit to the article _first_, I have prepared the proposed change on my User Sandbox, where I can also present notes and references to help support the basis for this proposed addition to the list, and to provide a venue for any questions and/or discussion that might be required _before_ such an edit might be accepted or contested.

If this approach is agreeable to you, please see what I propose at User:Brendan_Oisin/sandbox . Please indicate, on my Talk page, whether you feel my proposed edit is acceptable as it is, or what might be required to make it so. Of course, I will be pleased to respond to any questions, or need for further information, you may have. Thank you, in advance, for your courtesy.

Respectfully Yours, Brendan Oisin (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Brendan Oisin (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To:
Hazard-SJ
Night w
The Mysterious El Willstro
Yopie

Proposed Edit to "Pretender" Article

By way of introduction, I am User:Brendan_Oisin, a relative newcomer to Wikipedia (WP). I respectfully request your guidance.

This is intended to initiate suggestion for a change to an article with which I believe you are associated - "Pretender" (and more specifically, its section of "List of current pretenders"). Within that list, my suggestion pertains to the Ireland sub-section, and the addition of Liam Trant MacCarthy Mór, Prince of Desmond, to the current listing of pretenders to Gaelic-Irish historic monarchies.

Rather than make the direct edit to the article _first_, I have prepared the proposed change on my User Sandbox, where I can also present notes and references to help support the basis for this proposed addition to the list, and to provide a venue for any questions and/or discussion that might be required _before_ such an edit might be accepted or contested.

If this approach is agreeable to you, please see what I propose at User:Brendan_Oisin/sandbox . Please indicate, on my Talk page, whether you feel my proposed edit is acceptable as it is, or what might be required to make it so. Of course, I will be pleased to respond to any questions, or need for further information, you may have. Thank you, in advance, for your courtesy.

Respectfully Yours, Brendan Oisin (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To:
Hazard-SJ
Night w
The Mysterious El Willstro
Yopie

Jan Hus

Sorry, but the Jan Hus article really needs more footnotes. The whole Career section only has two inline citations (maybe three, if you count "Sermones, iii. 519, etc.") and a whole lot of {{citation needed}} tags everywhere. This is preventing the article from being listed at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/July 5 (for Jan Hus Day). Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 06:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for explaining, you are right.--Yopie (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Crosswiki edit-wars

Putting it midly, if both you won't stop your edit-wars I'll close your global account (as I already did with that one)--Vituzzu (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I understand. He was acting against consensus, but I understand, that my behaviour can be wrong.--Yopie (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, now I asked an Italian user, with a deep knowledge of the first centuries of Islam, to take a look at the issue. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Please see Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation for consensus about this matter. Definition of "University" excludes madrasah.--Yopie (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Rurik Dynasty

Dear Mr Yopie,

Unfortunately I very regret to notice that you are rather than looking for a consensus about the title image of this page using Talk:Rurik Dynasty#Coat of Arms trying to threaten me with blocking.

I beg of you for reading Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:No personal attacks very thoroughly.

Please do not hesitate to write your comments on Talk:Rurik Dynasty#Coat of Arms for getting the consensus.

Yours sincerely,

MelVic (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)MelVic

Wallenstein

May you stop vandalising Albrecht von Wallenstein? Fritz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.69.74 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Dear friend, please read WP:PLACE, where is explicitly:Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Of course, modern English names are same as Czech (with some exceptions as Prague).--Yopie (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oldest universities

Hello. You have shown in the past an interest in the subject of the oldest universities. I am therefore notifying you of an ongoing discussion concerning the topic here. Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Self-Styled

Please read articles before you start inserting "self-styled" in them. I described Bernard-Raymond Fabré-Palaprat's l'Ordre du Temple as a neo-Templar imitation order. You put "self-styled" in front of neo-Templar imitation order. The effect is to say that Fabré-Palaprat called his creation a neo-Templar imitation order. Obviously, that is not how Fabré-Palaprat described his creation. He claimed to be reviving the original Knights Templar. If Fabré-Palaprat did not call his organization an "imitation order" than it was not "self-styled" as a "neo-Templar imitation order." I realize you want to make sure everyone gets the point that this was not the original Knights Templar. By calling it an "imitation order" that is the point I am making. Further, neo-Templar imitation order links to the section of the Knights Templar and popular culture article that discusses modern organizations that claim to continuations of the medieval Templar movement. Finally, you do realize that the term "self-styled" simply refers to way an organization describes itself. Self-styled does not mean false. France is a self-styled republic because the French government calls itself a republic. Calling France as "self-styled republic" does not mean that France is not, in fact, a republic. Similarly, the Order of the Garter, which I think you will agree is a real chivalric order, is self-styled as an order because it describes itself as an order. You were probably closer to the mark with the term Pseudo-chivalric orders but, as we both know, the usage was struck down by the community. Johnwilliammiller (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yopie

Thanks for correcting my information re: Orléans Family. I learned something new! I do have a question though. I am interested in expanding an article on the English Wikipedia using information translated from the German Wikipedia. How do I do this? (The German article is longer and more thorough). (Thejeweledweevil (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC))

• Hi, thank you for your interest in expanding Wikipedia. About translating and expanding the article, please read help Wikipedia:Translation. BTW in case of minor expanding attribution in the edit summary is sufficient (something like "Expanded from German"). If you have any other question or comment, feel free and ask me. --Yopie (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

International Order of Saint Stanislaus

In the International Order of Saint Stanislaus, you restored three external links that I removed, namely:

• The Self-Styled Order of St. Stanislas of Mr. Juliusz Nowina-Sokolnicki
• Opinion of G. Stair Sainty
• The Once and Perhaps Still Lucrative Trade in Polish Military Decorations

If you click on those links you would see that the first one, "The Self-Styled Order of St. Stanislas of Mr. Juliusz Nowina-Sokolnicki" is dead and does not seem to have been active since 2011. In the "Opinion of G. Stair Sainty" link, Guy Stair Sainty mentions the Order of Saint Stanislaus very briefly and then refers to the reader to the third link, "The Once and Perhaps Still Lucrative Trade in Polish Military Decorations," for information. The third link works sporadicly. That website, "The Once and Perhaps Still Lucrative Trade in Polish Military Decorations" is credited to the pen-name "Dr. PANGLOSS" and contains information that appears to be nearly twenty years old. Guy Stair Sainty's information on the Order of Saint Stanislaus is ten years old as is that on the polishnobles.com site. Neither notes the splits in the mid-1990s nor the death of Juliusz Nowina-Sokolnicki. The links given in both Guy Stair Sainty and Dr. Pangloss's websites are broken. Neither website provides new information beyond what the wikipedia article already states. Given the preference for in-line citation I do not see any benefit to listing these three old and broken external links. I am familiar with all three websites and read them when they were new. I did not find anything that would be useful to cite for the wikipedia article. The wikipedia article presents the facts about the order so the readers can draw their own conclusions. The relevant facts are: 1) there was an Order of Saint Stanislaus that ended with the Russian Revolution and was replaced by the new Polish Order of Polonia Restituta; 2) in 1972 Juliusz Nowina-Sokolnicki claim to succeed to the presidency of the Polish government-in-exile but his claim was widely rejected and his is not recognized by the present-day Polish government; 3) in 1979 Nowina-Sokolnicki claimed to revive the Order of Saint Stanislaus; 4) even after he recognized the new Polish government in 1990, Nowina-Sokolnicki continued to claim the grandmastership of the Order of Saint Stanislaus; and 5) there are multiple groups claiming to be the successor to Nowina-Sokolnicki. All these facts are referenced to third-party sources.

Finally, with regard to the category self-styled orders, there are a number of factors that make that category questionable in this case. The website of the current organization using the name "International Order of St. Stanislaus" contains the statement "We do not claim to be the authenticate original Order, only that we follow their basic principles and precepts."[21] The website also notes the questions about Nowina-Sokolnicki's legitimacy, the status of the order with regard to the Polish government, and the fact that the head of the House of Romanov has a claim to be the heir of the original order. These facts seem to call into question the designation of the "International Order of St. Stanislaus" as a self-styled order. They do not seem to be calling themselves an order of chivalry but just a modern group that seeks to follow the "principles and precepts" of the Order of Saint Stanislaus. That would put them into the same category as Masonic groups that might imitate the forms of a chivalric order without claiming to be one. Further, in light of the original Order of Saint Stanislaus' founding in 1765 (late to be called an order of chivalry rather than an order of merit) and the fact that Nowina-Sokolnicki claimed to revive or recreate the order in his capacity as president of the republic, it is not clear that there was ever any intention to treat any incarnation of the Order of Saint Stanislaus as an chivalric institution rather than a modern merit order. Clearly, this is not a attempt to claim the heritage of the SMOM, the Teutonic Knights, or some medieval monarchial order of chivalry. Johnwilliammiller (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Email

Email's out. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Elector Palatine vandal returns

When you get an opportunity, would you please take a look at the edit pattern of Hansmccx in light of this? Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I will take a look on him.--Yopie (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hungarians in the Habsburgian empire

Hello ! You reverted my edit in article "Austria-Hungary". OK I wrote "was" where I should have used "were" (reason was that I changed "Hungarians" to "Hungarian people" or something like that. No offence taken. However the article itself do state (in a table) the percentages of each ethnical groups by 1910. (It might have changed since 1848, but hardly much) And the Hungarian percentage of the population is second, after Germans (or rather native German speaking). Further, 1848 aswell as 1830 (and 1789) are historically well known as "revolutionary years" in Europe. And as I wrote, the Hungarian uprise began whithin the Habsburgian Empire that year. Why not earlier ? Earlier the Ottoman Empire and Islam was too much of a threath towards entire Europe, the old Austria needed to be strong in order to avoid a Turkish invation. Best reg Boeing720 (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Lord of the Manor

You just reversed someone's removal of an unsourced claim on this Wikipedia page, Lord of the Manor. Please do feel free to add the claim back in with the source to support it, but unsourced claims can be removed, and an appropriate notice was shown to this effect on this Wiki page previously. Editor8888 (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Reference added, by Burkes Peerage. --Yopie (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for sorting. This is a very good source to have added to the article. --Editor8888 (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Croatian Nobility

Hi. Sorry to see you reverted my fixing of the isbns on Croatian nobility. The error causes the page to appear on Category:Pages with ISBN errors, and the red warning that it is wrong has reappeared on the page since your revert. How do you intend to fix it? There is no need for both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 numbers, since that is like saying your user name is 'Yopie' and 'YOPIE'. One is always redundant. However that still leaves two, and the cite book template only allows one. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, it was my mistake and it was fixed by me. Sorry for it.--Yopie (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comenius

I did add an edit summary the second time: beginning an article with "was a ___-speaking" is practically unheard of. After all, he could have spoke several languages. His names in those other languages, I removed because I cannot see how it helps the reader to have to read through a list of the same name in several east European languages before getting to the first sentence; especially when interwiki links are available on the side for those who want to read about him in Hungarian or Polish. 216.8.129.17 (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi anon, you probably know, that there were German speaking Moravians (ethnic Germans), so we need to differentiate. Names in other languages - we use all names, he use during his life. As he was working in Hungary and Poland, names in Polish and Hungarian are OK.--Yopie (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Could Comenius not speak German? Do we have any source showing him using the Hungarian and Polish names shown? I am sceptical on both counts. 216.8.129.17 (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Comenius was not German speaking Moravian, but Czech speaking, see source in the article.--Yopie (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • That he could speak Czech is not in dispute, but was that all he could speak? 216.8.129.17 (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Gdansk vote

"For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names"

Please stop editwarring. The Gdansk vote is absolutely clear about the usage of names. Please also remember that

"Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism."HerkusMonte (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Please, according to the rule, provide now an English language reference on talk page, as dispute arises. Otherwise I must follow the rule.--Yopie (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What kind of dispute do we have? Do you deny that Silesia shares a history between Germany and Poland? Do you deny that Breslau is the German name of Wroclaw? Or are you just disputing the usage of the Gdansk vote? HerkusMonte (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Lazarus in the film Outland

How is the 1981 science-fiction film Outland non-notable and Black Snake Moan notable? Neither one is Citizen Kane, but both have a substantial number of followers, I believe substantial enough to where my edit adding the reference to the 'Outland' character should stand. At least I'm assuming the "nn" in your notation "Rv nn trivia" means "non-notable." Methychroma (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

I reverted one of your edits here in the article Anti-Hungarian sentiment (Magyarphobia) and I deem such action hasty and borderline dubious. A reaction like this in the future will be constituted as an act of spamming (shamelessly blanking the page with no logical reason previously stated) and subject to Administrator's noticeboard candidate. Sincerely, ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Read talk page of this article and AfD's. You recreated previously deleted and redirected article. If you will continue in this manner, you will be blocked.--Yopie (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The AfD decision was that the deleted article shouldn't be recreated with the same content. The new version which you are reverting is not the same content and a lot better sourced, so perhaps it would be better to take it to WP:DRV? - filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • My only desire is that if my article could bear the deleted article redirect name in order to standardize the anti-national/anti-ethnic prejudice series thus help improve the reader's experience in some way. But then again, we could just leave it Magyarphobia, couldn't we? I see it as one of many solutions we can implement to resolve this dispute once and for all. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom, Inc.

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Yopie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sudetendeutsches Freikorps

Hi, I've reverted your edit on the the Sudetendeutsches Freikorps. If there is a dispute over facts the NPOV rule requires that we state that. If you don't think such a dispute exists please explain in the talk section. You also removed a word from a sentence without replacing it. If you don't like the word 'rump' to describe what was left of Czechoslovakia an alternative is needed. Rsloch (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of royal houses may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Heraldry and Vexillology project

Greetings! I have requested commentary from members of the heraldry and vexillology project at WT:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#Current direction of the HV project. Please comment there. Thank you! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we agree to a compromise?

| Coat of Arms

Can we agree that "The design is a symbol unique to an individual person, and to his family (except in the UK), corporation, or state." is accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATurtle05 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• OK, this seems to be accurate.--Yopie (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Knights Templar

Hi Yopie,

I noticed that you have reverted my edit on "Knights Templar" from "recapture" to "capture", I think the word "recapture" indicates that crusaders have captured the city before and that they are "recapturing" it again in 1099, while the fact is; this was the first time crusaders ever capture the city. I think the word "capture" would be more accurate and neutral. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifadly (talk • contribs) 04:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

House of Saxe Coburg Gotha and Braganza

Hello Yopie, According to portuguese habits it should be "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Braganza" or "Saxe-Corburg-Braganza" and not the contrary. So "Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" is a error. I will contact the creator of the article and discuss with him. Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaplaine (talk • contribs) 19:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hussite

You have reverted my edit without addressing the reasons. i do not like that, and it is against wikipedia policy. Maybe you are involved because you are Czech, but the burden of proof is on the claimant. The more outrageous a claim is, the bigger the burden becomes, and WP:REDFLAG is very clear on these issues. Asking for tags is missing the point completely. Equality before the law is not anything some Hussite came up with a few centuries ago. Maybe you are new to the topic, but equality before the law - while being a painfully bad article - gives you sources which are 2000 years older. It has become a staple in the philosophy of law ever since. -- Zz (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

American Renaissance

Please don't revert my edits "per talk" when only one editor is objecting on talk to using cited content. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Please understand, that we use consensus.--Yopie (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

”Forgotten Voices; The Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II”

It is very annoying and hardly fair to have someone eliminate a valuable reference on a particular Wikipedia subject without being able to reply directly and defend the action. The referenced book, “”Forgotten Voices; The Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II” is a definitive work, using eyewitness reports to show what occurred. It was not placed on the Wikipedia web site for promotional reasons but to assist the readers in learning more about this example of ethnic cleansing in Europe. The author does not need Wikipedia to promote his work; that is being done by Transaction Publishers, one of the leading social science publishing houses in the United States. It is also associated with Rutgers University, the State University of New Jersey. If the editor would send me his address in the Czech Republic, I‘ll send him a copy of my book. By means of this communication, I request the editor to reconsider his removal of this book from the “reference” section. Forgottenvoices (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Please, read WP:BOOKSPAM, mainly:" form of inserting book listings into reference sections although the book is not used as the source of any information in the article". Understand, as you use same username as promoted book, as you added this book in many articles and the book is not used as the source of any information, this is called bookspam.--Yopie (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Czechia / Česko

I want to know your reasons against the words Czechia / Česko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Lord of the Manor

Hello Yopie,

I have reverted your changes to the article, on the grounds that 1) citing the Earl of Bradford's website as the source of a third-party's comment is not a valid reference (it's here say), and 2) because the opinion of the Maltravers Herald Extraordinary - even if this quote could be shown to be true, i.e. quoted from a news source rather than a hobby blog - is irrelevant, as John Martin Robinson is not the arbiter of the significance of The Lord of the Manor title. The Earl of Bradford has a personal interest in the erosion of the legitimacy of feudal titles, and this is quite clear should you care to research the matter. I would very much like to keep the article soundly on the facts if you don't mind, and faketitles.com is not a good place to start from, given the bias it contains. Please don't reverrt my edits; I'm here with no conflict of interest attemptiing to shed some light on a subject full of misinformation and misconceptions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brit-o-pedia (talk • contribs) 10:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Brit-o-pedia (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Alberich Mazak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Czech

History of the Czech lands in the High Middle Ages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Čechy

Jan from Holešov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Czech

Petra Chocová (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Czech

Šimon Brixi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Czech

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yopie, you have left this message for me: You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askave. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Please, could you be more specific? In the discussion, I am always logged in as Geog25 and I sign my contributions. I use one computer at home and another one at work but I am always logged in as Geog25. Is this not allowed? If it is the case, I did not know and I apologize. Please, let me know because I do not understand. Thank you in advance.Geog25 (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

To Yopie: I have read your message suspecting me of sock puppetry. You may understand that I feel rather offended because I would never apply the unfair method of using multiple wiki-accounts. It is possible that I made a mistake/misprint when logging in but this was corrected immediately, so I really do not know what is wrong. DaisyXL 20:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaisyXL (talk • contribs)

Askave

Hello. I've been following the events around Askave and related accounts for some time, and I feel this editor falls into the WP:NOTHERE category. Do you think a WP:ANI thread about this user should be created? Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Agree, his last behaviour is rude and uncivil.--Yopie (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

House of Berislavić

Please don't do mass rev, as many objections get addressed separately so you're erasing all of those by such uncooperative behavior. Use Talk page for any objections you may have, as you suggested yourself. I am the author, and you can discuss any changes in Talk. Note references are obviously scholarly, from Hungarian, Croatian and other academic sources. Reaubilya (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Reply is in Talk page of the article.--Yopie (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

don't revert template

you just revert word Ethnically into Nationality, and it's not appear

--โจ : แฟนท่าเรือ : เกรียนที่หน้าตาไม่ดีแห่งไร้สาระนุกรม : พูดคุยกับควายตัวนี้ได้ที่นี่ 08:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Dear KKL Joe, whole concept on Nationality or Ethnicity of royal families is strange. They lasted thousand years and ruled over many territories. Ethnicity, as we know, is construct of late 19th century, because before people identified himself with Christianity, ruler and city or manor. There were Bavarians, Catalans, etc., but not Germans or Spaniards. --Yopie (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

House of Savoy in regard to Albania and Ethiopia

Hello Yopie, Wondering why you reverted to previous forms, the edits I had done (on the List of Royal Houses page) regarding the designation of the Italian claimants as monarchs of Albania and Ethiopia. The King of Italy renounced his claim to both these thrones in 1943 and recognized as legitimate the pre-occupation monarchs of those countries. Both current claimants of the House of Savoy fully recognize this renunciation. Also, I am curious why you removed the Ethiopian coat of arms of the House of Solomon from the chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendeq (talk

• Format and syntax. Please try sandbox, before you start with editing.--Yopie (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

e seen that corrections made ​​which support, but if you feel you must correct deve do it but do not forget the nodificaciones be objective.--Von Luxburg (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Counts of Luxburg: Difference between revisions

what their cruelty in the page of the Count of Luxburg, and explain the reasons for their constant modification and elimination of family crests.--Von Luxburg (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Please, use Talk:Counts of Luxburg for future discussion. Picture you added is copyright violation. --Yopie (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Counts of Luxburg

explain the reasons for editing and removal of images and text from the page counts of Luxburg. and under what parameters you consider that changes can be avoided without Luxburg family member and ignoring the name of it.--Von Luxburg (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC) I myself shield mount and edit a picture from the 18th century, do not understand or explain me because I say I'm violating copyright if I am the owner of those rights..--Von Luxburg (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Friedrich Ulrich Count of Luxburg

and tried to edit the page in question and every time I want something better you modify the article without explanation constant mind, perhaps you have some reason against my participation in wikipedia, explain their motives.--Von Luxburg (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yopie, this conversation about this article may interest you. It highlights the problem that rolling back edits rolls back every sequential edit performed by the user one rolls back. I do not mention this to criticise you in any manner, just to alert you, should you not have ben aware already. Fiddle Faddle 09:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

czech prime ministers

I agree that a lot of cabinet members were running from a SPOZ list but there aren't mentioned as party members. They could be elected as independents from spoz electoral committee

• In official web and newsPodivínský is not representative of KDU-ČSL in the cabinet. I presume, that the best will be to leave Rusnok´s cabinet as non-partisan.--Yopie (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no such place as Prussia any more and there is no such thing as a living Prussian royal family

So how can there be that ridiculous box with "Prussian Royal Family" in various articles, I do not accept it, all that sort of stuff should be deleted, it is not neutral, it is not accurate, it is misleading, there is no Prussian Royal family.Smeat75 (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• So Prussian Royal family was killed? By whom? And Prussia was erased from the Earth?--Yopie (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no Prussian royal family now because all German royal and noble titles were abolished in 1919. You mean "the people who would be the Prussian royal family if there were one" but there is not and has not been for nearly 100 years.Prussia has been erased from the map, yes,there is no such place, it is a historical entity only.Smeat75 (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Karl Graf von Luxburg Prince of Schonaich-Carolath-Beuthen

the translation yet for Fürst in English is prince or in other words the noviliario title same category, the titles are hereditary and since the person cuention is the son of a princess and an earl inherited both noviliarios titles since fuantes birth that German constiticion 1918 ask you to revert all changes to pararece been making gift of the name in question or explanation of some more weight or have a librarian backing.--Von Luxburg (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Dear von Luxburg, as you probably know, noble titles in Germany (and in all world) are inherited by male-line descendants, not by female. Of course, with possible exception of "last of the family". Because Princes of Schonaich-Carolath-Beuthen are living in male line, is impossible for female line descendant to claim this princely title. Please see German nobility for more. Thank you for understanding.--Yopie (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• the statement is correct but the bloodline that ends where his mother comes Luise Prinzessin Schoenaich Carolath-Bytom-Prince being born and the family of the emperor for the third line will use the mother's surname to paerno took precedence but mind later made ​​the change and allowed him to use the titles Prinz Schoenaich-Carolath-Bytom.--Von Luxburg (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Might wish to take a look at this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudeten_Germans Very badly written article with several POV statements supporting Nazi propaganda against Czech state. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Zvětšený text== Sir == Why did you revert the part about the Knights of Rizal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.2.105 (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Because honorific title "Sir" is used only for British citizen dubbed by the UK monarch.--Yopie (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not true. I can see you are not an expert so I will not discuss the matter with you any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.2.105 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Dear anon, if you have any reliable source, that Knights of Rizal can use, by law or ancient custom, title Sir, will be great, if you share this. --Yopie (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well referenced?

No coverage other than newspapers and nothing since 1993. Rubbish article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.168.42.163 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Newspaper is usually reliable source and 1993 is OK. It is your POV.--Yopie (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Esztergom

Hello! Can you please take a look at Esztergom article?. What do you think about this [22] text? 79.117.160.20 (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The vilatte orders.

I am a French contributor to the French Wiki.

This article is a shame. It is citing only Roman catholics or far-right French references. The San Luigi Abbey could be suing Wiki as there are some kind of diffamation.

--SpartakusFreeMann (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do not you answer and revert my changes ?

Hi,

I didn't make any act of vandalism on the page. You revetted to diffamous version of the page.

Where can I raise this issue with a moderator?

Sorry to bother you but what you defined as vandalism on the Umberto II page was not. Giorgio Napolitano is his illegitimate son! I have seen it on the news. MR Featured content.

• Source for this? --Yopie (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Dotaz

Proč se pořád snažíš do toho článku protlačit Židy, když dobře víš, že to nejsou Češi? Toto jednání snad lze kvalifikovat pouze jako vandalismus, protože diskuse už dávno vyzněla do ztracena ve tvůj neprospěch.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:3449:BBAF:9CFD:DFDD (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please, use English and don't be racist. You have big problems on Czech wiki with your racism, you know. Ms. Albright is catholic and/or episcopalian, ant thus cannot be Jew, understand?--Yopie (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Coup D'etat

Why keep reverting list of Coup D-etat. If a leader is forced to leave the Country and then voted out in absence that is a coup d'etat. Explain otherwise please!--Jimmydreads (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Because you not provided reliable source.--Yopie (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

about "temporarily"

Excuse me but it is an incorrect expression to say that Italy occupied temporarily the territory of Ethiopia: we are not talking about putting an hat above a chair in a cinema. Moreover the most of League of Nations participants recognized Italy sovereignty over Ethiopia in that years, so that historically speaking we cannot write about 'temporary occupation'. Other way the duration of such an occupation is clearly specified by the dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.42.186.243 (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

order of saint lazaras

hi. I am not sure if this is where email goes. please forgive me if I am getting this wrong and I will delete this. That being said i am actually a Knight Commander of Merit in the order. Of Merit is a classification for Knights who are not members, usually due to a different faith, for people whom they feel should be members. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcbell (talk • contribs) 22:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, they have two categories - one for members, other "for merit" for non-members, both are in same grades - member, knight, etc. So, please, understand, that non-members are in different category. --Yopie (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

List of oldest universities in continuous operation

See Talk page -A1candidate (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Bohemia

The artist Joseph von Führich was born there, at Kratzau. Consider reinstalling. --Joaquín Martínez Rosado (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, but with literally ten thousands other artists, and he was not same level as František Kupka, Alphonse Mucha and others well known painters from Bohemia. His inclusion in the general article about Bohemia is not appropriate. Of course, his inclusion in the article Chrastava will be great.--Yopie (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Yopie

Thank you for your message.

But, what exactly makes it a preferred Article? I am only writing what is true. You can check this at the website and whatever sources you want. I am providing enough resources to prove the thing thats write. This is not an article war.! Its just truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranayt (talk • contribs) 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please see talk page of the article. This is list of oldest universities in continuous operation.--Yopie (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Merging Royal House with Dynasty

I've suggested merging the article Royal House with Dynasty. I noticed that a little while ago you were involved about moving the article to 'house (family). Any input from you would be much appreciated. Sotakeit (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Ok can you explain on my talk page why you reverted the Asia and Africa section of coat of Arms ? so if theirs something wrong or un cited and fix it ,, thanks you P.Andrew (talk) 02:37, 05 May 2014 (UTC)

So your from Czech Republic and im from Philippines so Nice to meet you yopie P.Andrew (talk) 02:37, 05 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversial edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_%281944%E2%80%9350%29&diff=605429275&oldid=605407635 Xx236 (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi, i would like to have your opinion about a discussion which i started here, thank.Kingroyos (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverting disputed move

Jaqeli has now twice improperly moved Princess Leonida Bagration of Mukhrani to Leonida Bagration of Mukhrani, despite the fact that I twice objected to this unilateral move on the article's talk page, and another editor has joined me, here. Please reverse the move, allowing the proper move request process to determine the article's name. FactStraight (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli reverted your revert, but he has now been blocked for 1 week. Please undo his revert now. FactStraight (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Yopie, please refrain yourself from such "requests" and don't blindly move the pages. 2 users agree in the sense of the move thus there is consensus in removing the word "Princess". Also please note that the title you've moved back upon the request of the user above was moved back and forth from one name to another without discussion so the current title is the most neutral of all. Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Correction, before I become misrepresented here, I, the other user, supported the move (for a different reason than him) but didnt support the matter by which it was handle. FactStraight brought up the valid point that it was a controversial move and Jaqeli should make a proper move request from the original title since one user disputed his move froman originally accepted title. Something he never address. It's a policy issue here. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Finlaggan

I have reverted you back. That is a list nothing more or less. Detailed bio and history about the recreation of the title should be on the Finlaggan page itself. We don't include bio in the other entries on that list its all in their respective articles.Garlicplanting (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for explaining. Usually if someone deleted bigger parts, it is explained.--Yopie (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

My fault I usually do but I obviously forgot :-) Garlicplanting (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Knight infobox

You added an infobox to Knight -- an ordered list of titles and such. Nice, but it already has one of those, with some differences from yours. Can you resolve this please? Thanks. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, my fault. Error repaired :-)--Yopie (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zumbala

I have started a sockpuppet investigation of Zumbala based on their edits to List of current pretenders. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for it, I' m for it.--Yopie (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing links

Hello, Why are you removing genuine heraldic links and calling them spam? Most were not new links, but merely up-dates and repairs to out-dated or dead links. You have made no notes on the talk pages. What do you think the talk pages are for? I believe that what you are doing is vandalism and will be reverting your actions. Kiltpin (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Do you really think, that [23] this is not spam? This article is about mediaeval Wernigerode Armorial and inserted link is about contemporaly for- profit publication.--Yopie (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Armorial Register Limited

What a petulant cheap-shot that is. You obviously know nothing about Scottish Heraldry. A grant of arms is the highest notability in Scotland. The Armorial Register is one of only two corporate members of the Scottish Heraldry Society. The British Library regularly archives their pages to keep an up to date record for prosperity. You think that this does not make it notable? Did you bother to read the article before being nasty. Again, you don't put anything on the talk page, in spite of this "This user believes that every edit should have a summary." on your user page. What happened to "Good Faith"? Kiltpin (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Please, there is difference between WP: NOTE and general notability. Read the rules.--Yopie (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you want an edit war?

If you think that an article does not meet standards, then try and improve it. Just chopping bits out is vandalism. It doesn't matter who does it, it is vandalism. You are supposed to be experienced editor, have good faith and help improve the article and not destroy it. Just saying that in your opinion something is not notable is not consensus. The notability of The Armorial Register was sorted out and accepted when the article was created. I truly do not want to fight, but you seem to be attacking the article unreasonably. Kiltpin (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Again, I want improve this article, but part "References" is really wrong. Please read wp:mos, before any action. --Yopie (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• You don't like the style so you remove it? Explain how chopping out parts 'improves' any article. Don't blandly quote wikipedia pages - Tell Me! This attitude is exactly why Wikipedia cannot retain editors. Kiltpin (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• • OK, please explain, why in "References" were cited examples of citation in other wikiarticles. Do you have example of other article with this? I bet no..--Yopie (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• It is no good trying to reason with you. You have made your mind up (and of course "You are right and everybody else is wrong"). In spite of you saying that you want to improve the article, you have done nothing of the kind. If you are truly neutral please provide a link to where I can complain about your actions. Kiltpin (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Link Deletion

I cannot understand why you think the links were inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. The links, all heraldry related to one of the largest on-line heraldic armorial's. The Armorial Register is held in a high esteem by most heraldic enthusiasts and are sponsors several heraldic societies and organisations. It is the only heraldic register in the world with a Grant of Arms from the Lord Lyon King of Arms Her Majesties representative in Scotland and are publishers of various well known heraldic publications not only on Scottish Heraldry but heraldry around the globe. I feel you did not take time to look through their website to appreciate exactly the type or organisation the Armorial Register is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sketraw (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Do you understand wp:spam? You wrote the book and you deliberately spamed all heraldry related articles with links for purchase of your book. This is really called spaming and blantant promotion. --Yopie (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Yopi, The link was to the online register main web site not the book. All entries in the register are there for people to browse totally free of charge over 300 coats of arms and their bios. To be honest I feel you are being very hard indeed and it was not my intention to spam like some bucket shop. Sketraw (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• I understand, that you are proud author, but please understand that you behave as spammer. --Yopie (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yopi, I am indeed one of the editors of one of the books but the links were to the online armorial. Are you saying the link to the Armorial Register was of no benefit to those with an interest in heraldry? I may have added to many links which wasn't my intention but likewise you have been very heavy handed.Sketraw (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Sket, Please read WP:COI. Because they published your book, you are in conflict of interest.--Yopie (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OK Yopi, I can understand now that it could be classed as a conflict of interest, I never really thought of it in that way. Looking round the heraldry pages however there are lots of external links to the College of Arms and The Court of the Lord Lyon for example both organisations are corporate bodies and give no information without huge fees to anyone. Yet they and there internal employees can add links on any pages they wish to.Sketraw (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Friedrich Count of Luxburg

I have undone your edit. Dblanchir should be allowed to make the best case he can. IMO none of this helps, because it is all about the family, and if the article is kept it will certainly need drastic trimming, but let the AfD complete first - let's not give him an excuse to go to DRV saying he has been censored. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• I ´m not against Dblanchir or von Luxburg, but his last edits were not in Eglish, but in some sort of Gibberish. --Yopie (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Grand cross section

Hey, what is up with you, I am adding new information to that page and more than a half of those pictures are mine and I am trying to a lineup dates with correct awards, so before you mess with what I did compare the upgrades and you'll see it's only made to look better, and I did it in sandbox and than saved to the main page, So PLEASE don't screw that page, in original version you have 1870 recipient next to 1813 section, it needs to be organized. How else I suppose to edit, it was ok before what is wrong now, and who are you to police it?

• See WP:Mos about style of articles.--Yopie (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Order of Saint Lazarus

The recent posts and amendments are meant to correct the repeated historical mistakes that were being perpetuated by the biased errors that have been written on the original article. All historical facts MUST be referenced and based on documentation and not bias. Many reversions were made by contributors without even an attempt at reading the new text or requesting clarification. This is simply engaging in an "edit war" without even attempting to verify the text reverting automatically even bonafide attempts to provide references for statements. This is contrary and an abuse of Wikipedia policy. CSavonaVentura (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Please use talk page of the article and we can talk about various points of your opinion.--Yopie (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Definitely. I can give you a contemporary reference to all the statements made within the text BUT this would put the article on the level of an original article. All the statements can be supported by definite scholarly research papers. This includes the period for the time in the Holy Land [see reference: The origins of the Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus in the Further Reading], the European period during the later centuries until the 16th century, the legal aspect of the state of the Order in France after the mid-16th century [cf C. Savona-Ventura and M.W. Ross: The Heraldry and Development of the Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem. Published in 'Double tressure: The Journal of the Heradry Scoiety of Scotaland, Summer 2013, 36:+28p.], the existence during Bourbon Restoration Period, the 1830-1850 period [Savona-Ventura C. The French Revolution's mark on the annals of the Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem. Journal of the Monastic Military Orders, 2010, 3:51-70], and the post 1910 period. The only shadowy period to date is the 1850s - 1910 period since documentation is poor since most has been lost. This is clearly stated in my amendments for fairness sake! You have opted to arbitrarily remove the most referenced work which shows all this documentation from the Bibliography list [incidentally the fruits of my academic researches over the last 10 years utilizing original documents going back to the 12th century and including all the Papal Bull in Latin - * Savona-Ventura, Charles (2014) The History of the Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem, Nova Press, New York. ISBN: 978-1-62948-563-8] but have opted to retain the unreferenced and very biased text by Sainty, Guy Stair, ed. (2006) World Orders of Knighthood and Merit. You have FURTHERMORE also removed the link I have prepared making available ALL the original texts relating to the Order made available for bonafide serious investigators which I added under External links [* Research Library maintained by the Office of the Grand Archivist & Historian of the united MHOSLJ This source provides access to the full original cartulary of the Order with original documents, including all the relevant original Papal Bulls, dating back to the 12th century.] The removal of these links suggests either that you yourself are biased or more likely that you do not even bother to look through the notes presented in the "Difference between revisions" provided by Wikipedia preferring to retain wrong concepts and even spelling mistakes! CSavonaVentura (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• • • Let me comment in detail about what you persist to retain.

1. "It is believed to have given rise to the use of the green cross as the universal symbol for retail pharmacies worldwide." This uis rubbish and there is absolutely no documented link between the two crosses. Somebody started this myth which the article keeps perpetuating. Incorrect & misleading.

2. " Orléanist, under the Temporal Protection of the Count of Paris". Again this is in error since the Count of Paris has actually withdrawn his protection in a statement ["Communiqué de Monseigneur le Comte de Paris" (in French).]

3. "From its foundation in the 11th century, members of the Order of Saint Lazarus dedicated themselves to two ideals". The foundation of the Order was in the early decades of the 12th century NOT the 11th!

4. "The first mention of the order in surviving sources dates from 1106-16". This is in error based on a document wrongly ascribed by Sibert to Henri I when it was written during Henri II period. The Order's cartularly starts in the 3rd decade of the 12th century not the first or second. This revision is presently being prepared for publication in a scholarly article.

5. "It is unknown when the order became militarised but militarisation probably occurred before the end of the twelfth century due to the large numbers of Templars and Hospitallers sent to the leper hospitals for treatment." This again is in error since only the knights Templar regulations specified the rule to transfer Templar leprous knights to the Order of St Lazarus. The Knight Hospitaller regulations never included this provision - Hospitaller leprous knights were kicked out of the community.

6. the name "Royal, Military and Hospitaller Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and St. Lazarus of Jerusalem" is incorrect. The true name should be placed in the original French since this reflects the true status of different separate Orders with same management stricture. 'Ordres Royaux, Militaires & Hospitaliers de Saint Lazare de Jérusalem & de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel réunis' reflects a plurality "Ordres" not "Ordre".

7. "The French fons honorum was renewed in 2004 by Henri d'Orléans, Count of Paris, as a claimant to the headship of the Royal House of France." Again the fons honorum by the French crown was really renewed in 1969 when a member of the French Bourbon Family became GM of the Order. Henri d'Orleans actually has withdrawn the fons honorum from the so-called Orleanist group even though their webpage [see above] continues to state his protectorship.

8. I cannot understand why you opted to exclude the following text: "After 1830 the French foundation of the Order of Saint Lazarus continued under the governance of a council of officers. Unfortunately documentation of to the subsequent decades is unavailable, but the Order is documented to have been active philanthropically in Haifa, while contemporary biographies do mention late 19th century individuals as having been members of the Order of St. Lazarus. Traditionally it is believed that around 1841, the Council of Officers invited the Patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church Maximos III Mazloum to become Spiritual Protector of the Order, thence re-establishing a tangible connection with the Order's early roots in Jerusalem. By 1850, under the authority of the Patriarch, the Order had consolidated and numbered about twenty knights supporting the rebuilding of the Mount Carmel Monastery in Haifa, Israel, then under the responsibility of the Melkite Patriarch. On 27 May 2012, the Greek Melchite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch signed a declaration at Kevelaer in Germany confirming the continuity of the Order under the Patriarchs of Antioch since his predecessor Maximos III Mazlûm had accepted the role of Spiritual Protector of the Order in 1841." The Haifa connection is found in a text dating to the late 1840s. It clearly states "Unfortunately documentation of to the subsequent decades is unavailable" to emphases that this period is poorly documented.

9. Again I cannot understand why you arbitrary excluded the new division which I introduced to separate the undocumented "Dark Ages" with the Modern Priod after 1910 when documentation is quite readily available.

10. Again, I cannot see your reasoning for reverting the text I amended reading "The Vatican State can only formally recognise orders of chivalry that are under papal jurisdiction or that of the Holy See [24]; or are formally-constituted Dynastic Orders [25] or formally-constituted National Orders of Merit. The Order of Saint Lazarus does not fall under either of these categories. This has not precluded Catholic prelates from joining the Order." This now given reference links to what is meant by the different groups of authors.

11. The use of the term "Spanish" does not exist. This was the Malta Obedience until the reunification and now is simply known as the United Order.

12. Arbitrary exclusion of added references as endnotes or in bibliography and web links added to give academic credence to the text. CSavonaVentura (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

CZECH / GERMAN / POLISH NAMES

Just trying to help here. Many people around the world look at historical documents that use either German or Polish names for locations that now have a Czech name and they need help to figure it out. They turn to Wikipedia for help. So, I have some questions:

1. Explain to me why Wikipedia does not intend to be both factual and helpful?

2. Can you give justification as to why it is not "necessary" to help those who are seeking to figure out the location names?

3. Can you explain why your opinion about what is "necessary" or not is any more important or valid than any other users opinion? In other words, what right do you have to be judge and jury?

IMO, hard drive space is cheap. A few extra characters that might help some people is worth the effort. If others find it "unnecessary" that is ok, wikipedia should be looking at the entire audience. Please type your answers to the enumerated questions above. Thanks. Watkec (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Please read WP:MOS. Secondary names of the city is in his article and that is sufficient. We have some rules about it, and is better to know these rules. Simply, infobox is summary of the article--Yopie (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Order of St. Lazarus Talk page

Hey, Yopie. I just wanted to remind you of WP:OUTING. This seems like a borderline case (given that the username is similar to his actual name), but I might ask an admin that I trusted about it, if I were you. Achowat (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for it. It was because he explicitly [26] declared his name. --Yopie (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edit looks pretty alright, and he doesn't seem to want to preserve anonymity. I just want to make sure you don't find yourself behind a block for a bright-line violation that, ultimately, improves the encyclopedia. Achowat (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Dear Yopie.

Re Protectorship by Head of French Royal House to the Orléans group - see his personal statement on http://www.la-couronne.org/blog/actualite-royale/communique-de-monseigneur-le-comte-de-paris-12.html - The Head of the French Royal House clearly states that he has withdrawn his support to the Order of St Lazarus. This page is NOT a website that belongs either to myself or to any branch of the Order. Persisting to retain this statement may be injurious to the individual. Re Reunion of the Malta and Paris Obediences - see http://www.st-lazarus.net/en/component/fsf/?view=faq&faqid=5&highlight=WyJyZXVuaW9uIl0=

You can decide for yourself if you should retain the statements you have struck to. You would loose the case in a court of law by lookin at the true historical evidence. I will leave it to you to correct the present misinformation being generated by the article you are defending. Maybe we should refer this article to arbitration.CSavonaVentura (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Original document from 1377

Hi.

When I was sifting randomly through villages of the Duchy of Opava there was often a statement that it was first mentioned in 1377. After some googling I think this had to be in a document accompanying the creation of the Duchy of Krnov (první písemná zmínka v listině o rozdělení opavského knížectví z roku 1377). This had to be an important document, perhaps listing all the villages of the duchy. Like the document from 1457 listing all 45 villages within the Duchy of Oświęcim. It would be wonderful, wouldn't it? I wondered if this document is anywhere to be found online? Perhaps it was digitilized, or translated etc. I mean, at least with the full list of those villages. In the internet there are now such treasure troves like digitalized Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae, so maybe that one too. Could you help me finding this document? D_T_G (PL) 20:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, all what is digitalised from the Silesian archives is here http://www.archives.cz/zao/digitalni_archiv/ and here http://vademecum.archives.cz/vademecum/index.jsp . Both is done by the Zemsky archiv v Opave (former Silesian state archive). But I ´ m not archivist and I don ´ t know how is it useful for you. Hope this helps. --Yopie (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Alike I'm not an archivist, nor a historian. I just read some books and sometimes I peek on footnotes in them and try to google them... I just found this, the very first article is KONVIČNÁ, Jana. Opavsko a opavští Přemyslovci za vlády posledních Lucemburků. Paginae historiae : sborník Státního ústředního archivu v Praze. 1997, roč. 5, s. 5-25. ISSN 1211-9768., it has some footnotes, many directing to Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae, Volume 6, I can see there 3 documents from April 1377, pages 195-201, I'd wager there they are :) D_T_G (PL) 21:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Facilities at Diploma mills

I'm curious. Why did you revert edit to the Diploma mills article? I fail to see how the removal of unsourced and inaccurate statements is original content. 24.127.35.213 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Names

Hi Yopie. I've reverted Czech Republic to Czechia in some articles as the result of an earlier discussion was that both are acceptable. However, having reverted your more extensive changes to Bouřňák, I've had a closer look and restored the current Czech names as the primary names of places and put the former German names in brackets. I hope that's a good compromise. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Bermicourt. For Czechia and Czech Republic, please see article Name of the Czech Republic. Simply - only name we can use is Czech Republic, not Czechia. About Bouřňák - this mountain is in Bohemia and the article must follow MOS. Is OK to mention former German name, but is unnecessary and un-polite to refer Czech towns with German names in geographical article. In article about history of this region this can be OK, but in article about today geography not. There is any German speaking minority in the region. For more see WP:MODERNPLACENAME.--Yopie (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Bailiwick of Utrecht

I just undid the edit you made to this article, which was to remove the definition of this source. The effect of your change was to leave the citations pointing to nothing, like this: I agree that the cited source is not great, but it is the source, and the information it provides seems plausible. One way to deal with dubious sources (all sources are dubious, but some more than others) is to tag the source definition:

• Fred Smith's Blog

Aymatth2 (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hrabischitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Osek. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Bailiwick of Utrecht

I just undid the edit you made to this article, which was to remove the definition of this source. The effect of your change was to leave the citations pointing to nothing, like this: I agree that the cited source is not great, but it is the source, and the information it provides seems plausible. One way to deal with dubious sources (all sources are dubious, but some more than others) is to tag the source definition:

• Fred Smith's Blog

Aymatth2 (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hrabischitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Osek. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Armorial_Register_Limited

Hi Yopie, if you want I would send you some informations regarding this topic. Could you enable transmission via email? Thank you :) SR-7v (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC) —"Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender" SR-7v (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear SR-7v,

thank you for your offer about informations. But I know about The Armorial Register Limited all necessary - names, etc. I know, that this article is blantant advertising. But I´m not against them personally, so I dont need some secret informations. If you want help, please vote in mentioned vote.--Yopie (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

re:

Hi, are you sure you checked the talk page? If you check the main discussion in Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état you will found all discussions: it a coup and there is a consensus, so what are you talking about sir? , you revert my cited content , it's a vandalism and you prevent me from edit, (please read WP:HA) Ibrahim.ID »» 18:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I checked both links. Do you mean this first link http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2013/07/03/"revolution"-in-egypt-military-removes-president-morsi-and-suspends-the-constitution/? There are many reliable sources, calling this event as revolution, eg. Mohamed Morsi ousted in Egypt's second revolution in two years. And I cannot find consensus in Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état, only discussion about the name for this event. --Yopie (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If it a "revolution", wikipedia will change it but nothing changed since July 2013, there are many discussions and requests to change it, but all it are rejected, a lot of editors Support "coup", isn't it enough? the majority of the sources recognize it a "coup", please check this source from The Guardian itself: [27] and this one: [28] , check also CNN - BBC - The Telegraph , also If you check others wikipedias, you will find all it use a "coup", no one call it a "revolution". 'second: In any military coup, they call it a "revolution" to give him the legitimacy, so the controlled Egyptian Media and El-sisi supporters and allies call it, but the fact is different, the NPOV is not mean you refuse any disputed content, 90% of information are controversially, so when you refuse write this information , it will be clearly biased! also there is no consensus against write this information --Ibrahim.ID »» 09:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Manor of Jenkins

Hi Yopie,

thank you for reviewing the article on the Manor of Jenkins, I appreciate your comments. I wonder if you are happy to review your tags? I have removed reference to the current title holder now, and I have made reference to two sources (new one just added); as it is a small article I was hoping this would be enough?

Many thanks,

Jenkinsmanor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenkinsmanor (talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Censorship in Karel Schwarzenberg?

Yopie, I do not care about Czech politics so much, but I believe in democracy, humanity and responsibility, in life and at work. When I discovered that Schwarzenberg does not care about his current MP job, I reported it on wiki. This guy sleeps at work and on top of it, 28% attendance, that is truly a tragedy. I can hardly believe you deleted my whole contribution. It has to be a mistake. I urge you to fix this. I want to be friends with you, trust me. I am aware you are also a supporter of Vondra, but at least your edit there was a bit smarter than this. Ok, maybe for some reason you like these two guys, but nevertheless, they still do a terrible job. I am new to wiki editing and (as an idealist) I do not expect this in here. Please. Be smarter and sensible, please Yopie. My contribution is fine. Why on earth would you delete it? Please.Honzach (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)honzach

Yopie, I want you to communicate with me on this. It's been four days. Truth is truth, it must be revealed, even if it's unpleasant. honzach--Honzach (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was on holidays.--Yopie (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

And? honzach--Honzach (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yopie, you are an intelligent person. This is not something you can just ignore. This is wikipedia. I'm doing you a huge favor here. You made two very bad moves and I'm still giving you a chance here. I hate to make fuss about things. Your job is to clean up vandalism, not to cause it. Please go back to my text and everything will be forgotten.Honzach (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• OK, here we go:

Karel Schwarzenberg: Your edit [29] is against Biographies of living persons. Use words as "disappointment" or "infamous" is against rules of neutrality. In source you provided is nothing about it. It is only your personal point of view, no more, no less.

Alexandr Vondra: I just deleted your personal point of view [30]. Again "discredited himself by his unbiased" is not in the source and is not neutral. And "Remarkably, he accused Chomsky, who is himself of Jewish origin, of antisemitism." - "remarkably" by whom?, because not in the source. "Accused" - more neutral is "say" or "wrote". And do you have source, that person of Jewish origin cannot be antisemitist?

Generally, please read WP:BLP and do not push you personal views in biographies. Thank you for understanding.--Yopie (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yopie, here we go, thanks your reply, finally! I can see your point, but I also feel it's obvious you are protecting these guys. It's not me who has an agenda here. Can you actually use your common sense with me? Someone who often sleeps at work, in front of tv cameras, and when asked about it, does not really show any regret (my good friend is an MP now and they take pictures of him while he's sleeping, they find it funny). Most of people think it's shameful. Sleeping at work. Do you know anyone else who does it? Isn't that an infamous behaviour? Do you need a source for that? Someone who wants to work as an MP, to create and pass legislation for this country, and then, 28% attendance, isn't that a clear disappointent, even for his supporters? Do you need a source for that? You are a teacher. I used to work as a high school teacher, too. Imagine, as a teacher. With 28%, do you think the parents would come to school with a lawyer and question your comment "disappointment" regarding his low attendance? And of course, as a student, you can study anywhere, you do not actually have to be at school all the time, but as an MP, you actually have to be physically there. And he isn't. That is a disappointment! With Vondra, I actually used sources, I just translated them into English. And yes, I insist, his comment WAS unbiased (that is, providing you actually know Chomsky and his work, of course). I'm not sure you noticed, but I was actually being very nice to Vondra here, I did not write that Lidové noviny said Vondra was a liar. I actually feel sorry for him now, even though it's all his fault, I am not a hostile person. It is not me who is pushing his personal opinions here, Yopie. And I want you to cooperate with me here. Ok, I'm just a silly wiki beginner, please use my original text, edit it and show me how to do it. You can't delete everything. I can learn from you. In return, I won't make any comments on your English. (I'm still friendly with you, just a teacher poke, you know) Let's work on this now. I love to learn how to work properly on wiki.Honzach (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Dear Honza, I´m protecting wiki, not these politicians. Wiki is liable for the potential damage, caused by your edits, but we can shift the responsibility to the original source. If you find reliable source, OK, but now it is only your personal POV. My personal POV is, that I know dozens old professors, who are in university only two days in week, but they are very skilled and we need them. So, I understand, that KS dont need to be in every Parliament meeting. Again, this is my POV and I´m not pushing this in the article.--Yopie (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Yoppie, sure, I know it's often not easy for the old guys to keep up. But a vital part of an MP job is to be there at least when they vote! I checked with my MP friend (who has over 80% attendance, by the way) and the reality is even more shocking! He told me it's impossible to communicate with K.S. because he is either 1)not present 2)sleeping 3)he forgets his hearing aid. That kind of work attitude is appalling, no matter how old you are. I believe we should at least report his 28% attendance (like on Czech wiki), there is a source for that. That way, we are still being respectful to the old guy, while not hiding the truth. Don't you think? Honzach--Honzach (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

HELLO, YOPIE! Where are you? Are you on holiday again? I wonder about your work attitude now. How much time do you need to reply? honzachHonzach (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Micronations

The micronation Holy Empire of Reunion is cited on the New York Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/25/technology/utopian-rulers-and-spoofs-stake-out-territory-online.html Cited on BBC here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/413420.stm Its minted coin is cited on the very "Micronations" wikipedia page (even its image is reproduced on the very page!) Additionaly, it has two pages on the only known micro national book "Ils ne siegent pas a l'ONU"by Mr. Fabrice O'driscoll Other newspapers include JORNAL O DIA (Brazil), FOLHA DE SAO PAULO (Brazil), ESTADO DE S. PAULO (Brazil), Visão (Portugal), etc. It IS notable. Furthermore, it was on the original article for many years until it was removed for no explanation. More: Also cited on the book "Micronations: For Those who are tired of existing incompetent governments" by Mohammad Bahareth - https://books.google.com.br/books?id=SxA-O0Byl1MC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=%22holy+empire+of+reunion%22&source=bl&ots=IGU5kM5HE3&sig=UeLbDmmktH2EMzUcf2Ghb2QkmHs&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ei=WpPVVMSxDsSigwTT_4HQCA&ved=0CGYQ6AEwDTgK#v=onepage&q=%22holy%20empire%20of%20reunion%22&f=false Also, on POPCULTIVITY: http://popcultivity.com/world/weird-and-amusing-micronations-around-the-world/ MORE, even, on the The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures: http://www.shimajournal.org/issues/v5n2/f.%20Taglioni%20Shima%20v5n2%2045-67.pdf On turkish magazine KURIE: http://kurier.ty-i.net/2014/11/11/czlowiek-wodka-patrzy-na-lepszy-swiat/ On Legal Thesis "Teoria Delle Micronazioni", in an Italian University: http://www.diritto.it/articoli/informatica/iolis.html Article on FOLHA DE SÃO PAULO: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/informat/fr05089802.htm Article on Diário do Rio: http://diariodorio.com/reino-da-guanabara/ Cybergeo (FRANCE): http://cybergeo.revues.org/4397 The list is really big. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudre (talk • contribs) 04:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Claudre

All done as you requested (Sources, Article) Claudre (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies for the mistake in my edit of Micronation. I shall find a better source.~~Dickscawed~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickscawed (talk • contribs) 00:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Death by burning

I've left a comment at Talk:Death by burning. Thanks. IjonTichy (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Radovan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ragusa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Question Concerning this Statement

" This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soap-boxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yopie (talk)"

Please explain to me the purpose for this statement? I am not here to "soap-boxing, Promoting, or Advertising". Can you provide specifically what leads you to that conclusion? I did post a YouTube Link and then took it down once I was notified that it was a violation of Wikipedia external links guidelines. Other than that I do not know what you could be referring to.

--Bssmith117 (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How is RT unreliable?

What Russian based sources are reliable then? I see CNN, FOX, Moscow Times, etc as reliable. These are all western biased companies. They have been proven wrong on many occasions. RT is in the same class as them. What makes RT unreliable? DVT 19:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endukiejunta (talk • contribs) 19:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:RS. --Yopie (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How was I violating the formal tone?

I was simply stating facts. Where was I violating this, sorry if I did. Please show the example of non-formal tone I posted unto the page. DVT 20:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I went to the article

I do not see how RT does not conform to the Wikipedia standards be specific please.DVT 20:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

List of coups d'état and coup attempts....

It appears that a fake account was created just to "achieve consensus" on the talk page about the inclusion of the so-called "Ukrainian coup" in the lists. Thanks for the help so far in fending off a biased POV-pusher, however, continually reverting him will do us all no good (borderline 3RR). Let's help to achieve consensus on the talk page and set the issue straight once and for all. § DDima 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

reverts

Assassination of Wallenstein, 1634.

Yopie, You reverted this and several other edits to Wallenstein:

However, he was assassinated at Eger in Bohemia (now Cheb, Czech Republic) by one of the army's officials, Walter Devereux, with the emperor's approval.

– Was Eger generally known as Cheb in the 17th century? If so, I would like to see documentation. Ditto re your other reverts to my edits of this article.

The objective of using historical place names in articles covering time periods in which they were current (rather than modern place names) is historical transparency. For WP writers, the principle is: On first reference, use the name current at the time being written about, followed by the current name in parentheses.

This is especially important for the countless a) German and b) Polish place names that were superseded after 1945 by a) Polish, Czech or Russian place names, or b) Lithuanian, Russian or Ukrainian place names, due to border changes promulgated at the Potsdam Conference.

The Tirpitz fitting out at the Vulcan shipyard, Stettin.

For example, it would make little historical sense to write that "RMS Empress of Australia was a ship built in 1913-19 in Szczecin, Poland." At the time it was impossible for a ship to be built Szczecin, Poland, which did not then exist. At that time, the city in question was Stettin, Germany; the ship (originally named SS Tirpitz) was built by AG Vulcan Stettin.

(Personal note: I participated actively in the Danzig/Gdańsk vote fully 10 years ago. And BTW, for a time in the mid-'90s I lived and worked in Warsaw, gaining thereby a full awareness of the horrors of the German occupation of Poland in WWII.)

The post-WWII European border changes, population transfers and place-name changes are history. Let's not obscure it by misleadingly using modern names for places that had different names in previous eras. Sca (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sca. You probably well know situation in Poland and history of Prusia, Silesia and other former parts of Germany. These regions were without stable borders and rulers and we must be very sensitive about language. But Bohemia was independent kingdom and has borders stable for 1000 years. So, majority of inhabitants in Bohemia was and is Czech and this never ceased. Wallenstein was Czech noble and in his life Kingdom of Bohemia was independent country, with official Czech language and majority and we cannot use German names for towns in Bohemia. By the way, Silesia was part of Bohemia till 1740. --Yopie (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

– Was Eger generally known as Cheb in the 17th century? (I'm sure it was known as Eger in English until 1945-46.) Sca (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: I'm well acquainted with the ethnographic history of Bohemia and Moravia, which were crown lands of Austria in the 19th and early 20th centuries. And yes, Czech (-speakers) outnumbered Germans in both territories.

However, as anyone familiar with the fateful history of Central Europe in the interwar era knows, German-speakers predominated in most border regions of both territories, where they became somewhat inaccurately known as the "Sudeten Germans" (thanks mainly to Hitler & Co.).

The point is, Eger was almost directly on the border with Bavaria, and as our article on Cheb notes in the first paragraph, "Prior to 1945, which saw the expulsion of the German-speaking population, the town was the centre of the German-speaking region known as Egerland, and was part of the Northern Austro-Bavarian dialect area."

I understand the national sensitivity of the Czech people with regard to their complex ethnographic history, but in this case I believe referring to the 17th century town as Cheb is historically inaccurate. Therefore, I request that you undo your reverts. Sca (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheb/Eger was special territory (Egerland) with strong ties to Germany. Article Cheb say, "The name of the city was in 1061 recorded as Egire; in 1179 it was known as Egra; from 1322 as Eger and the surrounding territory as Regio Egere and Provincia Egrensis; after the 14th century also as Cheb or Chba." In the Geman article is "Der Name der Stadt war 1061 Egire. Ab dem 14. Jahrhundert sind Eger und Cheb dokumentiert, 1374 sogar im selben Text, „Egra in boemica lingua Cheb“." Frem 1850 the town is officially both Eger and Cheb. So Wallenstein and his contemporaries were using both names. What about Eger/Cheb?--Yopie (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Sca (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Infanta Cristina, Duchess of Palma de Mallorca page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Czechia

I would like to know why is the geographical name Czechia constantly reverted to Czech Republic. The Czech version Cesko is well established and used in respected vocabularies like https://www.kosmas.cz/knihy/137387/velky-anglicko-cesky-a-cesko-anglicky-slovnik/ and on Wikipedia itself: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cesko. Translation of a geoghraphical name by a political one is ridiculous and a specific Czech sickness. (Helveticus96 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)).

• Because it is not widely used in English, see talk page of the article.--Yopie (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

funny that CzechTourism is using it e.g. https://www.czechtourism.com/n/where-to-go-with-children/ (Helveticus96 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)).

If it's ridiculous (an idea that had never previously occurred to me), then it's no more ridiculous than "United Kingdom". (Actually it's less ridiculous. A united kingdom of what? And one with no king, just a queen and a duke.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (More precisely, it's here. No, not a complaint about you; instead, it's about the person who has some obsession with your edits.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Nyerere

Why is not right? I can give several sources about.

--Alec Smithson (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Philippe de Nanteuil

The "Trovatore" Philippe de Nanteuil, Knight and Lord of Nanteuil, was very famous about these activity. I ask to don't deleate if you don't know about. Please check the soruces. --Alec Smithson (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Please, use English.--Yopie (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

IP troll in the Austria-Hungary article

Can you convert it into a protected page? An IP deleted (which was written by an academic authority) reference and text from the article, without any discussion, just because it is a free encyclopedia, and he "do not like the text". --Prudoncty (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Prudoncty seems to be the same with User:Tirdwell. 91.127.61.217 (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, The IP troll spreads ignorant pseudohistory and fantasy. (Like Hungary was part of Austrian Empire before the 1848-1849 revolution) See: the article of "Ausgleich" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867

Check the maps from Austrian Empire article. 91.127.61.217 (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Which maps? Maps are not proofs. You can found contemporary maps on the internet. There were no common goverment with Austria, there were no common parliament, there were no comon laws with Austrian Empire, there were no common customs borders, there were no common international commercial threaties, there were no common state budget with Austrian Empire until 1849. There have never benn even common passports, there were only Austrian and Hungarian passports. It was just a simple personal union, which was supported/forced by the monarch's own professional army. See the personal union article of the wikipedia. Personal union means monarchical union, which doesn't mean state union.--Prudoncty (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian Passports 1700-1860 (Hungarian and French language) http://hbml.archivportal.hu/data/images/egyeb/kiallitas08_mod.jpg

Hungarian passports From 1867 to 1990 (Hungarian and French language and later in English language too) http://hbml.archivportal.hu/data/images/egyeb/kiallitas29.jpg

--Prudoncty (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing information

Hi Yopie, help me understand why you want to remove the German names of Czech places in areas that are close to the border and, in many cases, bore the German name for many years before their German-speaking population "left". Surely we want Wikipedia to have more information, not less? Also, it's helpful if you add a comment saying what your edit is about. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, please read WP:MODERNPLACENAME for understanding. German exonyms for Czech hills are mentioned in the first line of the articles about these hills, but we not need these exonyms in every line of the article. Dispured articles are about contemporary geography, so we must use contemporary names. --Yopie (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, do you not agree that placenames should primarily be written as the official spelling dictated during the time period in question? I noticed that you reverted my edit that did this. Hejligan (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

House of Windsor

Hi. Whenever I go to the House of Windsor page, the family tree section doesn't show up. Only whenever I deleted what I just deleted does it show up (which is why I deleted it in the first place). Just curious as to if you know how to fix this. Thanks. KBH96 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Click [show]. What OS/ device you are using? --Yopie (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm using an iPhone 6. And I don't see where or how to click show like you said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KBH96 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Strange, I'm using iOS too, but I'm on "desktop" version, and on right side is clickable button "show". You are right, in the mobile version this button is missing. This looks like a technical problem. According to the [31], it is bug. --Yopie (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

So do I need to report it, or has it already been reported? I have no idea how that works. Lol. KBH96 (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• This bug was not reported, only similar.--Yopie (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Republic of Aquitaine

Regarding this edit at Micronation (and its subsequent reversal): I have opened a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding this issue that may be of interest to you. (Don't worry, you are not the subject of the discussion!) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing information on Czech Silesia page

Once again I see you removed the mention of historical names from the Czech Silesia page. There should be no reason to forbid listing the historical names of cities which are meant to help orient the user. Especially in an English language edition -- which is neither Czech, German or Polish. It would appear to me a bit of bias is detected in your removal. Watkec (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverted But why??

Hi Yopie

You recently deleted all my changes made on the page List of Active Rebel Groups but why???

I was just trying to remove the wrong information from a wiki page.

Please reply Must I am new to wiki and want to learn its rules of edits AH bharara (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, take it to the talk page of the article. Usually, great changes to the article needs explanation and consensus.--Yopie (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am confused also, but welcome guidance. I was linking my article about speaker Deb Sofield to the Order of the Palmetto, for which I have a verifiable source. Do I need to do this differently? Thank you YearginD (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel attacked. Help, please.

Hi, Yopie, and thank you for trying to help me.

On my first page, Deb Sofield, your comments appear accusatory. I am looking for guidance and assistance, please. I can read all the Wikipedia introductions and tutorials, but I need some examples of the accusations that you've made. This is my first article. I am very happy to make changes so that it is more appropriate, but I do need to understand specifically why you've tagged this article as advertising or promotional. Please, please give me a little clearer and more specific information.

Additionally, with the article on the Order of the Palmetto, I cannot understand what was wrong with my edit that you removed. What did I do that made it seem promotional, biased or like advertising? My Deb Sofield article was tagged as an orphan. I was told to link to another article, which I did with the Order of the Palmetto. I looked at the other 3 examples at the bottom and tried to match their use of language.

I am very happy to edit to more appropriate language and formatting, but I am struggling with you editing and tags so far.

I look forward to your assistance. Really, I am trying to learn how to do this properly and professionally, but this does feel like a war. YearginD (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yopie. You have new messages at Talk:Deb Sofield.
Message added 15:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As this discussion is about article development and involves multiple editors, the article talk page is probably best for hashing this out. Whpq (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Glad to know the article is older than the source that I gave in question. At least there's no plagiarism on our end. Thanks for the clarification :) Aerospeed (Talk) 02:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yopie. You have new messages at Talk:Deb Sofield.
Message added 15:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As this discussion is about article development and involves multiple editors, the article talk page is probably best for hashing this out. Whpq (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Glad to know the article is older than the source that I gave in question. At least there's no plagiarism on our end. Thanks for the clarification :) Aerospeed (Talk) 02:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Theory of the sun and the moon and Unam sanctam

Yes you are correct.But,I how do I change page and move I do accept that it was mistake just wanted to preserve page how do I go about it.Richardlord50 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Richard, please wait with move till end of vote about deleting/ renaming of the article. Thanks--Yopie (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Duarte Pio, the pretender

Duarte Pio is just a pretender to Portuguese throne and to the titles of the Duchy of Braganza, as others pretenders are in the present. The right infobox to use in his article is the Infobox/Pretender and the information should be neutral. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sacred Order of Saint Michael Archangel

The order is as real as the Ghassan claim is. In other words, it is not. This is made for a PROD or a AfD and I'll be submitting one.

Thank you for fast and right reply.--Yopie (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ghassanids

Dear Sir, why did you revert my edits? The cited book was written by Ignatios Tannios Khoury, famous Lebanese historian, author of over 20 books and recipient of the L'ORDRE DES PALMES ACADÉMIQUES in the rank of officer from the French Government. The other source is a famous Lebanese newspaper.HTrimegistus (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Lucy la Zouche

She is an author who has written about all the subjects where I put links to her book 'My History' on her website; and some of this can be read on the site. Other books are cited so I cannot quite understand why these additions were not allowed. I am newish to Wikipedia so can you please tell me the difference between what I did and what others have done? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johneeemail (talk • contribs) 10:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Karl Graf von Luxburg

estimado usuario, según usted si dos nobles se casan que pasa, primer caso sus apellidos se fusionan, (apellido paterno+ materno) y se reúnen todos los títulos en este caso es príncipe aunque solo sea el título en el apellido, pero queda relegado a conde más los apellidos y títulos de su madre (Graf von Luxburg, Furst zu Carolath-Beuthen und Prinz von Schoenaich-Carolath si lees de ves ver que hay una “,” entre los apellidos), si no entiende puede ver el caso de la duquesa de alba y todos sus títulos y como su hijo no adopta el apellido paterno en primera línea. Y es de sabio reconocer los errores y es el caso que este cometiera un error, pero en este caso todos los documentos de Karl Ludwig Graf von Luxburg, Furst zu Carolath-Beuthen und Prinz von Schoenaich-Carolath, su defunción, actos de aprensión, su expulsión, los casos de soborno están escrito con el nombre largo.--Von Luxburg (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• thank you very much for the suggestion, My question is this graf von karl Luxburg son of Wanda Julie Agnes Prinzessin Luise von Schönaich-Carolath (daughter of Ferdinand Ludwig Prinz von Schönaich-Carolath and Wanda, Gräfin Henckel von Donnersmarck) and Friedrich Karl Ludwig von Reinhard Graf and his birth Luxburg It was before the Weimar constitution, if you investigate a little you find out you will see that Wilhelm II of Germany allowed him to use what he called the long name but only if wearing ";" after the name. use as reference documents for his arrest in Argentina. Sorry for my English.--Von Luxburg (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

See the list

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong

do not you think that he exaggerated in calling me a liar? at no point in the text it is written that he won Olympic medals where? as I have not found category participant in the Olympics I was wrong to put the category.

It seems an easy mistake to occur because the text properly report what I say. You'd be right if it were written in the text that won Olympic medals do not you think? Managing categories is very complicated. In no way are I am a liar and not in any way about I can ve your injuries.

There is no a the category Olympic or participant at the Olympics. Where I wrote in the text these?!! only in the category.

and YES he was in the hall of fame, these online version are not complete. --Alec Smithson (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

[[Category:Olympic swimmers of Italy]] Any other questions? --Yopie (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Yopie why your erase the correct category and you vandalism with the wrong category? * List of Italian records in swimmin --Alec Smithson (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Dont understand [32], because no such category was corrupted.--Yopie (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hungary and the Austrian Empire

Hello User:Yopie, User:KIENGIR is trying, without consensus, to reintroduce text to the Austrian Empire article. That text was removed in May after discussion on several talkpages (most notably on the talkpage of Ausgleich). The text is internally contradictive and verification of the sources failed. The sources either said the exact opposite of what was mentioned in the text, or were about another period than the article is about, namely the period before 1804, while the article is about the period after 1804. Furthermore, that text was originally introduced by sockpuppets (unbeknownst to me at the time) See: [33]. I have therefore reverted evoking WP:DENY. Is that right? I’m letting you know because, I seem to remember you were involved in this back in May, perhaps via the Ausgleich article. I have reverted for now but perhaps you can take a look at the situation. Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Servus v. Hebel, I will take a look at it. You are right, consensus is that Hungary was integral part of the Empire. I met with Stubes before and know him.--Yopie (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I see now that my memory of you being somehow related to all of this, was via the Stubes matter. Not that I'm saying that KIENGIR = Stubes, but the original author of the text involved was... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok guys,

I will wait but I ask you Yopie to carefully read all the discussion in both of the articles. I repeat I don't see any consensus, but in any case it was reached, it is totally improper, since Hungary never was "the integral part of the Empire", it has to be immediately revised! Not any consensus can get through historical facts, the good faith should lead and to highlight such information that is fully complies with the historical facts. Read also my proposition as a consensus to Hebel. Thanks (Hebel, what you did is not "canvassing" now? Anyway it does not bother me, since the facts should decide, not the number of people. I just tell you, the person accused me and informed you about "canvassing" seem to have an anti-Hungarian attitude, he reverted one of my edit in an other page but shortly after, he corrected himself, but he noted "he hopes now the Hungarian nationalists are happy"..although it was also a FACTUAL edit - the case can be similar but it has a long history - and not anymore that factuality can be disputed!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

You can read WP:Canvas to see what is and what is not appropriate. Asking an involved admin to take a look is allowed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel, don't play with us again, I read and know what is canvassing, I did NOT influenced other's opinion or any outcome, I urged expert and experienced collegaues who have their own opinion! Travisrade set you up!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC))

Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza and King Charles I of Portugal

There are here more sources about the the parental relationship between King Charles I of Portugal and Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza:

• Maria Pia of Braganza is presented in the family tree of King Charles I of Portugal by the renowned historian A. H. de Oliveira Marques in his book História de Portugal - Volume III published in Lisbon, 1982.
• Maria Pia of Braganza was cited as Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Bragança in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012).
• Maria Pia of Braganza was cited as the Princess Maria Pia in HILTON, Ronald; Hispanic American Report (Volume 10), page 576, published by the Stanford University, Department of Hispanic American Studies, in 1957.
• Maria Pia's life and parental relationship with King Charles was presented in a popular biography of Jean Pailler published under the title Maria Pia: A Mulher que Queria Ser Rainha de Portugal (The Pretender: Maria Pia, the would-be queen of Portugal), published by Bertrand Editora in Lisbon, 2006.
• Maria Pia's case was studied and presented openly by the famous Portuguese lawyer Francisco de Sousa Tavares and published under the title O caso de Maria Pia de Bragança (13 de maio de 1983) (The Maria Pia of Braganza's case), in Escritos Políticos I, by Mário Figuerinhas, pages 246–251, in Oporto, 1996.
• The author Isabel Lencastre published a literary work resulting from a study done to all the bastards of the Portuguese royalty and devoted an entire chapter to the case of Maria Pia of Braganza. The book is Bastardos Reais - Os Filhos Ilegítimos dos Reis de Portugal. Lisboa: Oficina do Livro, 2012, pages 211-223.

Thank you for your attention. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There is still no consensus about adding this matter to the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There are now published many sources and references. That's what Wikipedia needs, not only mere opinions from people who insist on their lack of neutrality... Anjo-sozinho (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I also don’t see you quoting (chapter and verse) where any of these authors explicitly and clearly assert that this lady is indeed Carlos’ daughter and what their evidence or even proof for that is. You also still have no consensus for adding this information to the article regardless.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Yopie, I have opened a thread about these matters at WP:ANI. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

propaganda?!!

Excuse,, I am writing to ask you the reason why she has deleted my intention to place a descendant of the family members of ESTE?--82.52.35.155 (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Because this was blatant and fraudulent hoax. Ercole III d'Este, Duke of Modena had only one legitimate issue, Maria Beatrice d'Este, Duchess of Massa.--Yopie (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Your justifiable revert

Hi Yopie, I wanted to give you some background on my edit that you reverted here.

I made that edit on the basis of an OTRS ticket initiated by Staneala Beckley, asking why she isn't listed on that page. She can confirm that she has the award in email.

The problem here is, there isn't really any centralized source that lists the award recipients. Many other entries in that article also have no citation. Therefore, I thought it would do no harm to add one more, and at least "cite" linkedin in the comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand you, but Linkedin is not reliable source. And I' m afraid, that because she doesnt have her own article, she is not notable for including in the list of notable recipients. This OTRS ticket looks like a WP:Self-promotion. If she is notable, there must be some articles in reliable newspapers about her and the award and this problem can be solved. I hope you understand my opinion. --Yopie (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Understood, and I explained to her in my reply in OTRS that someone might come along and remove the entry. So, should we remove the other unsourced entries that have no articles? See for example Israel, Lebanon, and the United States, and others that are red-linked (or non-linked) with no source. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we shall remove these entries.--Yopie (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Crown (heraldry)

Hi Yopie! Long time, no see. I'm just back from a long hiatus, but I remember working with you in the past, I assume on some heraldry-related articles. I hope we can work well together again. I just wanted to say hi and let you know that I really don't mean to come across as uncaring about the work someone did adding a TON of images to the crown (heraldry) article, but I made a selective deletion of non-prose content on the basis of Wikipedia's content policy. The thing is, Wikipedia isn't meant to be a gallery of images. That's what Commons is for. I wish we could have had this discussion a year ago, before a bunch more stuff got added in, but I was busy with other things off-wiki. I hope the new year has found you in good health, peace and prosperity. Cheers! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yirmiyahu Yovel

Personally, I disagree that Yovel isn't a notable academic. However, in an effort to be fair I've added the appropriate template that you may have omitted to add...

May I take this opportunity to wish you a very prosperous and healthy 2016! BushelCandle (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it is my error. Of course, he is notable and deserves his own article. Best wishes in 2016.--Yopie (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, Yopie. Despite your confirmation of my belief, I've not removed the template for reasons I outline here. BushelCandle (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Polli Corporation

Hello Yopie, thanks for your rollback of the edit made by that blocked user. The user has been blocked on many wikis. I just would like to get you noticed that in the meantime I checked some sources and created the article Polli (company) with the text that I had previously wrote in Polli Corporation. Actually, Polli Corporation seems to be a "true" company of the past. But the article was likely written to promote this little company by exploiting the notoriety of another company with the same name (the aforementioned Polli) and the "historical value" of an unrelated and not notable old company (Polli Corporation).

Please see fr:Discussion:Polli_Alimentari/Suppression and it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Conserve Fratelli Polli as well. Thanks! --Lucas (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. The article was confusing and promotional, but now seems clear. --Yopie (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) It is probably a multiple-wiki spam. We could speedy delete it on it.wiki. We'll see. Cheers. --Lucas (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Baronet

@Yopie: thank you for your kind advice earlier. However subsequently I have been ambushed by someone who clearly takes delight in criticising me & doing about as much as one could possibly do to stray off the actual topic whilst denigrating me. I'm fed up with it. If people don't like my contributions why can't they go about their business quietly without spending hours and hours moaning and groaning. Please help! M Mabelina (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in and please ignore me if my question is inappropriate or unwanted:

Who is "ambushing" you and can you provide diffs of the kind of behavior you deprecate, please? BushelCandle (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yopie and BushelCandle: thank you for your concern and are you in a position to provide me with assistance? M Mabelina (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I've no idea, Mabelina.

Perhaps if you were to answer my 2 questions I might be in a position to answer yours:

1) who is "ambushing" you?

2) can you provide diffs of the kind of behavior you deprecate, please?

BushelCandle (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

See User talk:Mabelina & Lord Bessborough - the latter is preferable, albeit longwinded. M Mabelina (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yopie and BushelCandle: so to summarise - there is much to be done to improve Wiki's content. However, my name seems to be on a watchlist & unless I spend hours arguing the case I get threatened. Is not possible for people to enhance Wiki without such treatment? M Mabelina (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
PS. let's see what gets reversed without due consideration..

@Yopie and BushelCandle: you asked who is "ambushing" me - so please see User talk:Miesianiacal who yet again doesn't like what I have to say, so wants to remove me from Wiki. I spend all my time trying to set down in the clearest of ways the reason(s) for my edits, yet these are seemingly dismissed out of hand as if I am some sort of trouble maker. How can one make a point about Wiki MOS if one then has to spend hours and hours arguing thereafter? I prefer to get on with improving Wiki's content, not engaging in this truly frustrating behaviour. M Mabelina (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edits on Brno

Hello. I have reverted your repeated claim about executions being public and attended by local Germans (initially even claiming that they paid admissions fees). The first source, fronta.cz, is a user-contributed site and thus not a reliable source per Wikipedia's rules (meaning it can't be used as a reference), and there's as far as I can see no mention of public executions attended by local Germans in the other one. Also please stop removing the German name of the city from the lead of the article. Thomas.W ^talk 14:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Your edits on Brno

Hello. Please stop your POV edits on Brno. Even if the source you added is reliable by Wikipedia's standards, which it IMO isn't (ISSN numbers have nothing to do with how reliable they are...), it does not say that "local Germans attended" the executions. That's entirely your own original research. And under "General guidelines", in the section "The lead", WP:PLACE expressly says that "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted". So stop. Thomas.W ^talk 13:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, what you dont understand in simple rule WP:PLACE:"All alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves...Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."--Yopie (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• I noticed that you added some Czech text to the source in the article, the problem with that is that it doesn't support your edit. The article says "Executions were public and local Germans attended", while the Czech text only says that "executions were public", it does not say that anyone actually attended, and it does above all not single out local Germans. I'm neither German nor Czech, and have no personal opinion about it, but you cannot add a statement like that without having a reliable source that says exactly what you add to the article. So what you're doing is adding original research. Thomas.W ^talk 14:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

RE: 21st century editing.

I will keep reverting your edit if you keep putting in the short 20th century. Plus, the reason I am doing that is because its about history the article you keep putting it in. Its talking about the calander and numbers of the 21st century.The short 20th century should have a wikipedia article of its own. 21st century is from 2001-2100 century is a century. I'll stop reverting if you gladly stop saying it began at the end of the 1914-1991 period. 21st century is the year 2001 and after nothing before that. I don't want it there because i am worried that people are gonna be confused by what a short century is so I think its better to have an article of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodworker87rrrrty54 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

3rd millennium

Hi there,

On the 21st century article, there is an explanation about how the 21st century differs slightly from the 2000s (century). Many people argue about whether the millennium and century began in 2000 or 2001. It would thus be helpful to explain what the 2000s would truly mean if referring to other than the period from 2000 to 2009.

Thanks, 151.225.85.68 (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

--Vlasime (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)--Vlasime (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)== Jankovský of Vlašim ==

Hello can you help me !

I know you are an Editor and you are Czech and know of the family Jankovský of Vlašim.

The page with the history of old Czech family Jankovský of Vlašim has been removed by Jac16888 and also by you, I sent e-mail, documentation and requested help, but page is not restored so how can I improve ?

The history is true. I am not the best writer but will try to improve it but I need the page restored so I can look at it and work on it.

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide. --Vlasime (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC) tj@jankovsky,netpage

Jankovský of Vlašim

The Page Jankovský of Vlašim was rewritten and references added why do you continue to redirect ?

--Vlasime (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Please stop redirecting this page !

Czechs

Hello Yopie. Could you give me some background on this? I can see it's a contentious issue, but I'm not sure what the background is. I'm pretty sure there is one as I'm at present in a state of complete failure to understand what the fuss is about. Also see this rather pretty encounter. Thanks.. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Yopie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Why Did You Revert the Following Page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_historical_German_and_Czech_names_for_places_in_the_Czech_Republic&oldid=prev&diff=774900086

That is equivalent of Martinez (Columbia County) and refusing to link to the Columbia County page. What is the problem here? Watkec (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Because Manual of Style is allowing in the article only one link to same page. --Yopie (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That is interesting. So, I realize the following page has data in a table, but I count 14 links to the Baldwin County page alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Alabama And this is multiplied many times over on other pages throughout Wikipedia. Soooo, either the "Manual of Style" has been superseded by actual practice, OR you have a lot of work to do to undo all of those links on all of those pages. So which is it? And why does the "Manual of Style" apply to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_historical_German_and_Czech_names_for_places_in_the_Czech_Republic&oldid=prev&diff=774900086 when it clearly doesn't apply elsewhere. Shall I compile a list of pages on Wikipedia that do not follow the "Manual of Style"?

Watkec (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Here are a few more examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_California

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Colorado

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Connecticut

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_in_Connecticut

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Alaska

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Arizona

Need more? Watkec (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• MOS:DUPLINK" Generally, a link should appear only once in an article"--Yopie (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Slavs

I have no problem with the revision you have restored and I appreciate the summary. I was just concerned about the conduct I saw happening in the history since the editor you ultimately reverted made numerous contributions and succumbed to arbitrary rollback on two occasions when it is clear that this person edited in good faith (i.e. meant well, and didn't vandalise, even if he did not meet policy requirements). This is why I left this message[34]. So you know, I have no ambition to engage in further dispute on the article itself. Thanks again for the summary. --OJ (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Blasphemy

See WP:CFORK and WP:SUMMARY, sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles, leaving summaries in their place. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Katyn

Xx236 (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Accepted edit on Czech Republic

Could you clarify why you accepted this edit? Seems like all it did was remove cited content with no explanation. DMacks (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Candia/Levieux hoax

Hi. Thank you for this. However I don't think it is Smithson, it is the highly nefarious "Candia/Levieux" vandal ("vandal" in the smithsonian way), whose last incarnation was user:Edy2017, and who has surprinsingly never been blocked as far as I know...--Phso2 (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Phso2 Thank you for info about new "inventor" of noble lineage. --Yopie (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Some excerpts from my collection : [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]...--Phso2 (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Candia/Levieux hoax

Hi. Thank you for this. However I don't think it is Smithson, it is the highly nefarious "Candia/Levieux" vandal ("vandal" in the smithsonian way), whose last incarnation was user:Edy2017, and who has surprinsingly never been blocked as far as I know...--Phso2 (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Phso2 Thank you for info about new "inventor" of noble lineage. --Yopie (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Some excerpts from my collection : [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]...--Phso2 (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Knights Templar template Image

Hello Yopie,

I wish to notify you of a person that continuously modifies the Template:Knights Templar imagery without any justifiable reason. There has even been attempts by another to edit the imagery and i see no reason as to change the original image of the Templar Cross, especially when these two individuals can not have any consensus. Interaction with any disapproving users is not in my expertise, could you please address this? it would be most appreciated. Thank You.

Vale da Avalon (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK "neo-templars" with their agenda.--Yopie (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"When History meets delusion." Vale da Avalon (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

revert

Why did you revert my entry on the list of foreign award winners of the Ordre des palm academique?? I have been awarded this year and I have proof! Natacha

Do not change the Emperor page line about the two Emperors. The August Emperor of the Romans and the Emperor of Japan are the two contemporary Emperors. If you continue to cause problems, then there will be consequences.

Roman Emperor contemporary? Are you really sure? Where he rule? And who is it? Did you take your pills?--Yopie (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for openion

Article Legitimacy (criminal law) has been requested to be moved to Legitimacy (law) requesting your openion at Talk:Legitimacy_(criminal_law)

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

New to wiki. Need help with specifics

Hi. I read your page. You have a lot of knowledge. I need some help. What is your scope of law knowledge strongest in? Kethertomalkuth (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Barons in Scotland

Thanks for patiently picking up my error. I hope I've got it right this time. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of polyglots, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Field marshal

Hi. I'm puzzled by your edit summary We use English - I don't understand.
In any case, it is not a good reason; the edit should be reverted because it is not relevant to this article. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Mountain ranges of the Czech Republic

Hi Yopie, please refrain from deleting the English names of places in the Czech Republic in favour of only Czech names. I realise you are from the Czech Republic and may find English names offensive, but this is English Wikipedia. All nations use their own names for places around the world as well as native names, so for example, London is called Londýn on Czech Wikipedia and England is called Anglie and we don't go around forcing you to change those. Please treat English speakers with the same respect. Thank you. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not deleting the English names, but outdated and unused names. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. --Yopie (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. I'm fully aware of WP:COMMONNAME, but you seem to think "native name" is the guiding principle. Research the sources please and then use the talk page if you feel change is needed. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Kladzko

Historically was part of the Bohemia, for the church this ended in 1972.

Ridiculous and egregiously POV. Before 1945 it was German and had been so for two centuries. After 1945 it was (and is) Polish. The fact that the RC church was slow to recognize the post-1945 changes, as it was with respect to other Potsdam border decrees, is irrelevant to what had happened on the ground. Sca (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

House of Anjou

Hi Yopie! Unfortunately, the information could not be confirmed and no evidence. "Well-known fact" is not an argument. The extinction of the House of Anjou-Durazzo is not confirmed. Any attempt to assert otherwise is a clear violation of the rules of Wikipedia. The only thing for certain is that the senior male line of the House of Anjou-Durazzo is extinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duconte (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You probably mean well known fraudster Alexis Brimeyer aka "Prince d'Anjou Durazzo Durassow Romanoff Dolgorouki de Bourbon-Conde". Please go away with this.--Yopie (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That was an incorrect generalization. No, I mean there's nothing. Every assertion must be proved. I'm sorry, but you're just too easy. I haven't got time to deal with this now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duconte (talk • contribs) 23:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It is your claim and it is your duty to prove it.--Yopie (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That is not a claim. I don't have to prove anything to anyone. Your ignorance and vandalism exceed all legal and moral boundaries. I'll make it up to you, I promise. I just don't have time right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duconte (talk • contribs) 10:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

List of current pretenders

Hi there. Can you please explain this revert of yours? Dated September 1. You gave no explanation for that. The information you replaced was referenced. Please elt me know what was wrong with that. Albert Dawkins (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Are academic citations that show the Welsh succession to Kingship was hereditary available? The citation that reverted clearly shows it was gavelkind. Evan Vaughn has stated in magazine interviews he has "no interest" in putting forward a claim. Since the Welsh system was gavelkind it would not go to Evan Vaughn automatically. Academic citations indicate that Llywelyn is the successor. Please help me with this. Albert Dawkins (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Please have a look here, let me know what you think about this. I plan to create an article on Llywelyn, Prince of Cymru. Albert Dawkins (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Move review

An editor has asked for a Move review of Grand Duchy of Kraków. Because you participated in an earlier requested move for this article, you might want to participate in the move review. Academicoffee71 (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Yopie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Yopie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Lawyers and law students' signatures needed for Supreme Court amicus brief in favor of publishing the law

Hello, given your userbox I thought you might be interested in helping Carl Malamud's case for the public domain, crucial also for Wikisource: https://boingboing.net/2019/04/25/happy-law-day.html . Best regards, Nemo 21:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)