User talk:Surtsicna/Archive6

Re: King Michael

It's more like I must have forgotten to reply. Now that the discussion is live again, I still object to the anglicized name version. Let's reach consensus through a wider discussion through RM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth of Bosnia

She is already a GA. In a little while I'll have access to the Polish Biographical Dictionary, and I'll see about gettign scans of her PSB entry for possible expansion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King of Spain

Excuse me, but I don't understand your argument. I have never said that the title of King of Spain encompasses Naples and Sicily. I said that the title includes the Peninsular territories (except Portugal, which by its independent history differs). It is a fact in history. If you want to see evidence, here are documents of the 16th and 17TH centuries that prove there was the title of King of Spain. Reverting unexplained reversion of other edits.Please discuss.--Belibaste (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! First of all, you should not just revert all edits, including grammar corrections, without any explanation. For example, here, you reverted "stillborn daughter" to "stillbirth Daughter". Here, you made the infobox ridiculously wide, reinserted an inappropriate number of images and irrelevant statements. You also removed Naples and Sicily from the infobox saying that the title of King of Spain encompassed Naples and Sicily. That is my point. Besides, it is a fact that the Crown of Castile and Crown of Aragon were not politically united until the reign of Philip V and some parts of the articles should reflect that. Such a fact should not be ignored altogether. The title of the article "summarises" the two into "of Spain" but why should the article itself be so cheap on words? Surtsicna (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

First. I'm not sepak English. I only see that you withdraw (without reason) the title "King of Spain" and acted accordingly.

Second. I have NEVER said that Naples and Sicily within the title of King of Spain and I have not withdrawn them from the infobox. Do not confuse.

Third. Spain was born under the reign of the Habsburgs. All the texts I've put up name Charles V as King of Spain (separating Sicily and Naples).

Cuarto. You can't tell that the word and the concept "King of Spain" does not exist until Philip v. That is absent from the history (test: the documents above).

Please, stop your attitude. If you want to reflect the political decentralization, that can do without deleting a word and a title that they were used and that are currently designators.--Belibaste (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that your English is not very good. I'm having problems understanding you. Nevertheless, you should discuss controversial edits at the talk page before making them and you certainly shouldn't revert all kinds of corrections for the sake of one point. Surtsicna (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

hi there,

I was already wondering if something was wrong with the images until I realised you were changing it. The portrait of Frederick of Prussia is the only one that he apparently sat for, also it is around the time shortly after the war. The features of her face can all be seen in the other paintings. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting and discuss the changes you would like to make. The portrait of Frederick was painted 15 years after the end of the war and it shows a 51-year-old instead of a 30-year-old. The portrait should be relevant to the section it appears in, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. The portrait you inserted does not show Maria Theresa's face nearly as much as the previous one does. The focus should be on the face, not her dress. Besides, the quality of the photograph is much better. Once again, can we please discuss this properly? Surtsicna (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better however to show a portrait of the king that is the most realistic, as opposed to just a stylised one, wouldn't you agree? Gryffindor (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting without explanation! It is very rude. Please attempt to gain consensus first instead of engaging in an edit-war. Anyway, could you please tell me where you got the information that all portraits of Frederick except for the 1763 one are stylised? Surtsicna (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are the one who keeps on reverting the improved edits, so please just stop and explain on the talk page why you don't want these reasonable changes to be done. Also try to Wikipedia:Assume good faith instead of accusing. I have noticed that you have done this previously with another editor as well. Please realise that you do not have a monopoly on these articles. Gryffindor (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that those changes are an improvement. Since you are the one making controversial changes to a stable article, shouldn't you explain them on the talk page? I am certain that you would like to improve the article and there is no reason to doubt good faith of a long-standing editor who has contributed a lot. However, I do not understand why we can't discuss the changes before making them and try to reach a consensus. Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at articles such as Louis XIV of France, which has a full portrait. It is also the most famous portrait of him. Don't you think that the most famous portraits of the monarch should be used as opposed to an obscure one? Gryffindor (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you to some point. However, I do not think that a famous portrait should have precedence in cases when there are portraits that are simply more useful (and by useful, I mean better that depicting the subject). There are articles that do not follow the Louis XIV example. I am sure you agree that reasonable exceptions should be made for every "rule". Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recapitulation theory

Hi Sursicna, I think the article needs help from editors very knowledgeable in biology. You probably don't agree with me, (as is your right)since you took down the expert needed template. Could you explain your take on this? thanks, and best wishes, Rich Peterson76.218.104.120 (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I took it down only because it was not OK for an article to say that "WikiProject Oversimplified, narrowly focused on a strict version of theory, to be used a straw man to ndercut evolution and support creationism may be able to help recruit an expert". It looked like pure vandalism to me; if it wasn't, perhaps there is a better way to put it? Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mm that's funny! I just wanted to put an expert tag up as in the olden days, but the template demanded an explanation...i just put whatever my thinking was at 3 or 4 am.76.218.104.120 (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we sorted that out! :) Surtsicna (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keivan

Keivan is not a Muslim name. I come from Iran and I'm Iranian and my name is a very old Persian name. Keivan.f^Talk 12:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I will search about some sources for the ancestries of Masako and Kiko. Keivan.f^Talk 13:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Offline citations

Hi there, it's not a problem you need to fix - offline citations simply refers to the references you used in Elizabeth of Töss not being available online. Just means that a different tag is used (the grey one instead of the green one) to note that it's ready to appear in DYK. Offline citations are perfectly fine, after all, not all the necessary resources to add information to articles are available online! :) Miyagawa (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at Philg88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Elizabeth of Töss

On 22 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth of Töss, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Blessed Elizabeth is said to have been the lawful heiress to the Hungarian throne but was harassed and forced to join a convent by her evil stepmother, Queen Agnes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth of Töss. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from the DYK team of Wikipedia! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Adoption of Jogaila by Elizabeth of Bosnia

If it helps, this is that source says:

...in return, Jogaila would marry Jadwiga and be adopted as son and heir by Jadwiga’s mother, Elizabeth of Hungary.... p.710
... Jogaila was thus thrice king: through election, adoption and marriage. In February 1387 Jogaila took a bishop, his mother-in-law’s former confessor, to Vilnius and began the long process of converting his pagan people to Christianity in the Roman rite.... p.710

Horvat vs Horváti

Paul Horvat/Pál Horváti was a cardinal and politician in the Kingdom of Hungary, why did you use a Croatian name? The family name was Horváti after a village in Valkó County. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What English language sources? Please, expand the articles with relevant sources. I know, this is a very sensitive theme, but we should seeks consensus. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I accept the arguments, but, please, use this books as references to the articles. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, according to my studies, John/Ivan/János Horvat/Horváti served as Ban of Mačva/Macsó, not as Ban of Croatia. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Banate of Bosnia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Banate, Braničevo and Visoko

Banate of Mačva (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Banate

Henry I of England (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Matilda FitzRoy

John Horvat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Usora

Paul Horvat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Usora

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hi Surtsicna, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! v/r - T P 12:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pollutant

Care to comment here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be easier if there were a source that calls the daughter Bridget. Unfortunatly, I haven't been able to find a single English language source that mentions her daughter by any name. Surtsicna (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Elizabeth of Bosnia. 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 the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for causing inconvenience. My pleas for a discussion were ignored and I did not know what to do; it turns out that what I eventually did do was wrong. Eh, errando discimus. Surtsicna (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use this chance to take a break and come back better.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]