User talk:Marrtel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Welcome
2 Duchess Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
3 Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles
4 Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers Follow Up
5 Deleted redirects
6 Your moves
7 Naming of bio articles
8 Louis of Lorraine
9 RE: Vandalism
10 Władysław II Jagiełło vs Jagiello
11 Polish start
12 Moves
13 Union of Vilnius and Radom
14 no:Ingebjørg Finnsdatter
15 Magnus
16 Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty
17 Byzantine names: suggested moratorium
18 History of Lithuania
19 Warning on AGF
20 Incivility
21 Portugal
22 Your Move
23 Criticism of Skanke family genealogy's alleged medieval and royal ancestry
24 Skule Baardsson
25 Your move of Inge the Elder
26 Moving of "Polish" nobility, more properly nobility near polonization efforts
27 TfD nomination of Template:POV-name
28 Duchy of Opava
29 Hungarians
30 Good Job--but why stop there?

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Marrtel, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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 good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Ioannes Pragensis 16:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duchess Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin

You really ought to read the naming conventions. Cecilie was never the consort of a reigning or formerly reigning sovereign, therefore the title is needed. Charles 16:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The convention among scholars is to use the format "Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin" of those persons, and Wikipedia naming conventions clearly follow that. She certainly did not die as "Duchess" but as "Crown Princess", therefore no self-respecting work of reference would title her as Duchess, rather they do not put any such honorific title to her. She is a deceased consort, and I think there is a naming convention for such. Marrtel 11:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You think but you do not know. Please read the naming conventions. Charles 15:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I know the naming conventions. Charles, read the rule and examples that speak of deceased royal conmsorts. Marrtel 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You obviously do not know them well enough. Other Royals, #4. Cecilie does not fit under any other heading. Charles 15:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has clear procedures on moving pages. Other than in exceptional circumstances all pages should be moved by following the instructions on the Requested Moves page. Unilateral moves can trigger edit wars, break links and cause a lot of problems. Please stop unilaterally moving pages and follow the correct procedure. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

FearEireann/Jtdirl, you are wrong. There are guidelines regarding moves, and nowhere there is stated that moves without request are allowed only in exceptional circumstances. Rather, it's the contrary: moves are a part of editorial work, and ONLY if move is expected to be controversial, request is used. Your own words should be reversed to reflect that request to move is used on "extraordinary circumstances". It seems you, Jtdirl, have understood the policy in a wrong way. You should not try to impose yor own commands instead of those presented in WP policy. Marrtel 11:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It would save work to others as well as bad blood to propose most all moves first at the talk pages and wait a couple of days for reaction. Except the plain obvious cases like typo or smth there is nothing to loose and a lot to gain from such an approach. Thanks, --Irpen 08:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles

Hello, Marrtel. Let me thank you for your contributions. Could you be so kind as to announce your new articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles, so that other editors could come and check them? Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers Follow Up

Greetings. As a recent contributor to the survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI, you may be interested in the following. A mediation sought by Panairjdde resulted in the recommendation that "that proposal two from this page be implemented in the short term, until a consensus can be reached about proposal three". Accordingly, before resuming the editorial process, I am seeking feedback on whether option 2 or 3 of the former survey is more acceptable. Please state (or re-state) your opinion in the follow up survey on Talk:Constantine XI. Thank you for your time, Imladjov 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted redirects

Hi. Just wondering why you've created so many redirects to nowhere. I've already marked three or four of your redirects for deletion and I keep finding them. Do you need assistance in understanding redirects? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

He seems to do this in order to prevent his controversial page moves being moved back. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if he does it again, I will be opening an RFC. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your moves

Your unilateral page moves, and disingenuous and purposeful subversion of the wikipedia renaming process by editing previous location, are not appreciated. Your citing of wikipedia convention is not accurate, as hundreds of comital ranked lords have the formula X n of Y. This is especially important here, were the the title "Earl" is both historically inaccurate (only attested terms are comes and mormaer) and implies that the lordship was a feudal grant of little meaning, when in fact in this case it was a vast regional lordship effectively independent from its overlords for most day-to-day things. Anyways, the name Malise can hardly be described as "well-known", and in fact Maol Íosa is just as common, and has the additional benefit of being more accurate, Malise being a meaningless anglicization. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind them being called "Earls", but the previous style Xn of Y avoid the need to use either term, and thus by using it, you have engendered controversy. As for "English names", no such English name exists for Maol Íosa/Máel Ísu; Malise, Malice and Malis have all been used, it is true, but these aren't "English names", these are just textual corruptions; Malise just happens to be the one employed by the early 20th century Scots peerage, and the name Maol Íosa is more common that Malise (which no-one, save one Arab historian, has), and, like I said, is actually accurate. Finding "English" names just for the sake of it is something wikipedians in practice have long rejected. You should also check out actual comtemporary scholarly work, were the name Maol Íosa/Máel Ísu is favoured over anglicizations, eg. Dauvit Broun see here and Cynthia Neville. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I find in practice defining a "king" is not as easy as one would think - see for instance Jogaila. You're under the illusion that wikipedia policy governs wikipedia, it does not; rules in practice are decided by the small group of people who edit any particular article, not by abstract principles, and only a few people actually edit the wikipedia policy pages in any case, and these people are generally careless about the huge number of implications their "guidelines" have for specific articles. I suggest in future you think twice about trying to enforce "guidelines", esp. before you have consulted talk pages. Like I said, I don't object to the Xn, Earl of Y, formula; but your unilateral edits have created a huge problem for medieval Scottish lords. I suggest in future that when you move a page, you do not go and edit the source page with double redirects simply in order to avoid having your move reversed. If you do that, you will get yourself in a lot of trouble, because it seems you are intentionally trying to subvert the wikipedia process. Please in future do not move pages without consulting the talk page, or holding a vote. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We have the problem that, for instance, we know "Earls" such as the Mormaers of Lennox and Moray did style themselves as Kings when using Gaelic; the Frankish ranking of peers post-dates the first appearance of Mormaerdoms in Scotland; at any rate, "peer" is inaccurate because it implies that these lords had the same authority as modern peers who exercise no actual lordship. But like I said, I don't have much objection to Xn, Earl of Y per se, so long as you don't have the garbage about X, 1st Earl of Y, (etc) which is just silly in this context. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'd rather you hadn't moved them at all, as it means lots of work for me. But, yeah, I totally object to using the name "Malise", which is Latin and not English orthography anyways (the e is not silent!). A number of debates on wikipedia have been about moving to and fro between common Gaelic names (and in fact from nmany European languages) and rare anglicizations, and the latter almost always loses. It is the name Malise that is unintelligable, Maol Íosa/Máel Ísu (pronounced: Ma-ool Ees-suh) means "devotee of Jesus", whereas Malise/Malice/Malis means nothing. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop moving the Orkney earls to pages with silly numerals without discussion. If you want to change the current naming scheme, we can discuss this at Talk:Earl of Orkney Fornadan (t) 22:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I was a bit harsh in my last message (hope you're not scarred for life). Anyway, I see you've tried to add the picture Bååt.JPG to the Erengisle Suneson, Earl of Orkney page. It's not possible to link to a picture from the Swedish wiki to the English wiki. Instead (since it's a completely free image) you can upload it to Commons from where it can be linked to any wiki. Fornadan (t) 23:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of bio articles

To what was your comment on my user page directed? And may I just say that unilaterally moving certain pages is unwise in that it could cause problems with redirects and prevent the page from being moved again without an administrator. Exceptions to the rules are necessary at Wikipedia and sometimes consensus is achieved for a certain nomenclature. Better to propose big moves on talk pages first I've learned. Srnec 15:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louis of Lorraine

Srnec is correct in citing CMedH. I looked hastily, since I was interested in the question of name; but a rewrite could be useful. On the other hand, I haven't seen his other source; it is very likely that everybody is relying on the same one or two chronicles anyway. Septentrionalis 21:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Vandalism

Marrtel, another tip, don't accuse people of vandalism. Look up WP:Vandalism please. Please also exercise caution before seriously editing articles on medieval Scotland; at the moment, the topic is very well researched on wikipedia, and it would be appreciated if you would read as widely and with as up-to-date materials as other editors do before submitting extensive material. This avoids using up other editors time in the need to correct misconceptions and give history lessons. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Galgacus, blind reverts are regarded vandalism or close to it. You cited a totally unrelated reason for your blind revert, thus showing that you had not even read what you reverted. Marrtel 00:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:Vandalism please. Blind reverts do not count as vandalism, and anyways, reverts don't count as "blind reverts" just because you don't understand them. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Władysław II Jagiełło vs Jagiello

Maybe you would like to vote or discuss Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło ? Juraune 06:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish start

Talk:Bolesław I the Brave

Talk:Bolesław II the Bold

Talk:Mieszko II Lambert

Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks.

Talk:Jan I Olbracht.

Talk:Kazimierz III the Great

Hey, I've voted in your proposed moves. Unfortunately, I felt like I had to oppose some of them. I don't like the form "Boleslaus" or "Vladislaus" - I don't think these odd forms are really the most commonly used Englishf orms at this point, if they ever were, and I'd prefer to just stick with the Polish version in cases like that where there's no real English version. I supported the other moves (although I think it should probably be John I Albert of Poland, not John I of Poland - the second name is like that of Gustavus Adolphus, or other rulers who are generally referred to that way, even if the ordinal came right after John. john k 20:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposals might not be perfect, but at least Marrtel made a start to sort it out. If the supporters of moves disagree, the articles will stay at the current names.--Matthead 22:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moves

Can I remind you that the "check double redirects" option is there for a reason when you move pages. This tells me that you aren't using it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I have not moved that page, it tells nothing of such. Pethaps it really should be moved, but I would not bother at the moment. Your writing above is baseless, and probably due to your negligence to check facts, or perhaps ignorance. Marrtel 22:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You made Teresa of Spain, Dauphine, for whatever reason; I assume it's related to your moves of assorted Spanish prince(ss)lings. Since there's no article called Louis, Dauphin of France, you created a good few double redirects. Maria Pia delle Grazie of Two Sicilies is another redirect you created that doesn't work properly, so is Maria Pia of Bourbon-Two Sicilies and Mathilde, Duchess in Bavaria and doubtless many more besides. Indeed, closer checking tells me that these can't even be blamed on a move. If you have trouble with the concept of redirects, I suggest you install Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups, then you can easily check that the redirects you are creating actually work. Alternatively, click the link and check that it works.

It is related to there being a number of redlinks in nearby articles, and those redlinks are almost improbable to get a proper article ever. (I do not mean an article which tells that "this little one died when two years old, as sorrow of his/her whatever people. His/her father, mother, grandparents on both side are blah blah and" - they are linked. And yet worse: "had this promising two-y.o. not died, he/she would have been an adornment to the royal house and a big help to her/his brother/whatever, who with such support might not have lost the throne in year xx.") My idea to take care of at least some of those is to link to to, preferably spouse's article, as there at least the children list is usually identical (hope so...) But I am not willing to exvlude the possibility that the person would get an article, therefore only one of them redirects to the spouse, others (alas, there are variants of name) to that connecting link. So, work towards there will be an independent article, or go to the sources to change the links already there. Marrtel 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But if I was wrong as to what happened to create the double redirects to Louis, dauphin de France, I am right in general. You moved Presian of Bulgaria to Presian I of Bulgaria on 11 June; this is the result. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I deliberately did not do anything to "Presian" as it should be made a dab page in fullness of time. Regarding that, do you represent an opinion that ultimately useless work should be done? I rather wait for a robot to change their source articles in that precise situation. (Others are empty.) Marrtel 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And how would that have fixed the double redirect problem ? Even for bots, you need to ask, specifically for them to be fixed. It does not happen automagically. And making Presian into a disambiguation page would have created a worse problem. You'll have a long wait before bots can fix links to disambiguation pages. Please just click the "double redirect" thing when you move pages, and click redirects when you create them to ensure they work. Otherwise someone else will have to fix them. Having spent weeks off and on fixing links to disambiguation pages, I am not at all inclined to be tolerant. If you are going to move pages, please do so carefully as making a bad job of it creates a lot of work. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And that is the reason why I did not make it a dab page yet. Of the whole issue, there is two Presians, and the fault lies with creating an article of one of them under the shared name. If then a bunch of links go to that page which logically should have been a dab page from the start, too bad. I am not so technically orieted as to load a variety of software to my use... This work should not require such, otherwise you will be without many contributors. Marrtel 23:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for technical wizardry or special software - when it comes to PCs I am as clueless as the next person. The "What links here" thing at the side of every page will always show the links to that page. So long as they all point direct to the page, or point to a redirect page that points to the page, then everything works. But if they point to a page that points to a page that points to the page (...), then it does not work and needs fixing. All you need to do is make sure that after a move, you change every redirect page to point straight to the new page. That is unlikely to be a perfect solution, but it will work. As for testing a redirect, that's as easy as clicking on it like any other link. If it takes you where you expected, it works. If it doesn't, it needs to be changed to point to the page you want to redirect to. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Union of Vilnius and Radom

The recent discussions about the Union of Krewo, led me to peruse the article entitled Union of Vilnius and Radom. Kind of a goofy and confusing title, don't you think? Dr. Dan 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no:Ingebjørg Finnsdatter

Leaving aside the Austrått/Finnsdatter question for now, Ingeborg is the only way that the books I have checked don't spell her name. I have Ingebiorg once, Ingibjörg once, Ingibiorg three times, and Ingibjorg eight times. My personal preference would be for a simple transcription to Ingebjorg Finnsdatter, but the reliable sources say otherwise. On the whole, given the lack of any reason to associate her with Austrått, it seems to me that Ingibjorg Finnsdatter is the most reasonable choice of article title. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As you know, it seems that we have two articles on her, yours at Ingeborg of Austraat and another at Ingibiorg Finnsdottir; one of them needs to be a redirect. Like they say about buses, you wait for ages then two come along at once. I had plans to write a fairly long article - if you look at Malcolm III of Scotland you'll see that she may not have died c.1070 and may have had a third marriage (if we believe Snorri, but if we don't, why believe the anonymous author of the Orkneyinga Saga ?) Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I went and merged them. Anything wrong with the form Ingibjörg Finnsdóttir? Usually, my opinion is that if there is no standard English form, the original form is what we should fall back on. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we talk about the naming of the article there, at Talk:Ingeborg of Austraat (or whatever is its talk location now)... I seriously doubt an original form of the name even exists in as far as today's world has knowledge. The article is welcome to be fuller and longer, I just wrote those details I had read. Will those additional texts and fcts help in any way in the naming? Marrtel 10:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magnus

Done. Adam Bishop 15:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Marrtel 20:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty

Hi. There is another move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you might be interested in it. Imladjov 20:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine names: suggested moratorium

On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Lithuania

I want to ask you to add Lithuania stub categories in history articles, where you think that Lithuania's history is an important part of the article. Juraune 13:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning on AGF

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. --Irpen 02:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a clearly undeserved warning. I warned Iroen against his moves of controversial articles without RM - Irpen has recently made such controversial moves. As result, Iroen writes as he does above. I think I let readers to decide who breaks against AGF and acts disingenuouosly. Marrtel 02:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility

Your "warnings" are incivil and may be regarded as disruption of Wikipedia. If you continue to engage in incivility and intimidation of senior ediotrs, such offence may lead to your blocking, and in extreme cases, banning from editing Wikipedia. Do not do it again. Regards, Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I again saw you indulge in incivil accusations, this time behind my back. This is a grave offense of WP:AGF which will be treated accordingly. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portugal

Thank you for telling me, especially since I fear I have disappointed you. I'm not sure whether you have edited Hilda Toledano; but I don't mean reasonable edits from either POV; but the suppressio veri vandalism that plagues the place. Septentrionalis 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Move

You moved the page to Line of succession to the Portuguese throne, which had been deemed as POV title already before, by at least three users: John Kenney (who specifically said it to be POV), Septentrionalis (who had moved the article from that name,and indicated POV concerns), and me. At most, three users ever supported that name you now moved it to. And you can see at Talk:Line of succession to the Portuguese throne that the present name was not in the move proposal, which may be the reason why some did not think necessary to oppose just it specifically. Move requestes must not be assessed by surprises (the name was not in the proposal about which the survey targeted). Please redo the closing, with a proper assessment on basis of what was requested. I say that the name to which you moved the page, is POV, and is supported only by (a) ignorant peopåle, and (b) POV pushers. There is no extant Portuguese throne for anybody to be in succession, and the defunct throne is under serious rivalry, and its possibly leading candidate does not hold legitimate succession rights according to laws which were in force in that monarchy until its abolition - thus, "line of succession" is inherently and dangerously POV as to this former throne. Hope you do not want to promote POV. Marrtel 12:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Marrtel. Thank you for your concerns. However, as you probably know, wherever I decided to move the page to was going to get me in trouble by one or more parties. As far as I can see from the talk page:

Line of succession to the Portuguese throne

Pretenders to the kingdom of Portugal

Pmanderson

Miguelist line of succession

There is obviously no consensus either way, so I reverted back the original title where the article has always been until Pmanderson's move. If consensus is reached on a new title, at that point the page can be moved. —Mets501 (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Skanke family genealogy's alleged medieval and royal ancestry

Your actions with regards to the various "Skanke"-related wikis seem to be unilateral and full of clear incivility. The hoax warning at Talk:Skanke Family Association was especially horrid, down right primitive, I wopuld dare say. I would also like to say that the writings of G.V.C Young O.B.E (of which there are quite a few, I can dig up the rest of them if you like) are not fantasies or fairy tales. You, sir, appear to be totally out of control. Manxruler 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to actually be incivil towards a fellow editor, I refrain from speculating why that hoax genealogy is here. However, requiring NPOV is not seen as incivility; instead it is seen as necessity for an encyclopedia. Marrtel 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is somewhat disturbing how you have changed the Skancke article beyond recognition, and left the references in place, making it look almost like said references support your changes. Manxruler 01:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there have always been people who desire a royal ancestry for themselves. They generally have not been ready to receive criticism, and some of them seem to have had severe difficulties to publish the alleged genealogies in sufficiently exact form. Marrtel 02:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Will look into the geneaology issue for you. I will inform you that this is not merely a Norwegian Skanke issue, but also includes the Swedish Skuncks and the Danish Barfods. For now, a quote of George Vaughan Chichester Young, who wrote more historical books about the Isle of Man than anyone else, living or dead: "The rebellion {of 1275} was, however, abortive and resulted in some members of the royal family emigrating to Norway, where their descendants are still to be found in the Norwegian family of Skankes, the Swedish family of Skunck(e)s and the Danish family of Barfods. The emigrants took with them as their Arms "the three legs", which had been the Royal Arms of the Sudreyan Kings since about the middle of the thirteenth century. These Arms (a modification of the ancient Indo-Germanic sun symbol) were simplified in Norway and Sweden to one leg and in Denmark to three bare feet, and later to one bare foot" Young, G.V.C.: "A Brief History of the Isle of Man", The Mansk-Svenska Publishing Co. Ltd., Peel, Isle of Man, 2001: p. 12 Manxruler 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skule Baardsson

I have replied to your mistaken accusation on my talk page. --Barend 15:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your move of Inge the Elder

You wrote in your edit summary: "moved Inge the Elder to Inge I of Sweden over redirect: naming convention for monarchs, and FYI we use english customs, not swedish". Maybe one could regard the Bush clan as american royalty, with Duke Jeb of Florida, and currently George Bush II of USA. Of course, any attempt on my side to rename would get me banned for WP:POINT. However, the difference is slight, as the "monarchy" in Sweden was not really hereditory. /Pieter Kuiper 20:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweden was an elective monarchy all through the Middle Ages, until the succession act during Gustav I. I am failing to see any relevance in the "rant" about the Bushes. Marrtel 20:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving of "Polish" nobility, more properly nobility near polonization efforts

Please don't mass move the established articles. If you want to move a single article, it is usually a good policy to explain your reasoning on talk; than ask if there are any objections. If you want to mass move a series of articles, please start a discussion at WP:PWNB, WP:NC or a relevant place where interested editors are likely to notice the discussion and gain consensus for such moves first. So far the consensus has been (roughly) to use Radziwiłł and Polish spelling for names, as English translations a) often use the Polish variant and b) if not, they use several different spellings, so its hard to even agree which non-Polish variant is the 'true English' one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks again like Polonization "establishment" of English Wikipedia. The above "request" looks like a way to prevent names of cerrain articles to be something else than in Polish rendition, and the above claim of "the established.." means nothing more than a long-time effort to have polonizations to remain here. Wonder why such Polonizers have not yet been put to parole as to their polonizing efforts. Marrtel 17:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to see someone else recognised this major effort by Polish nationalists on the English Wikipedia. I was prepared to add to many articles but they simply reverted my earlier efforts citing - guess - Polish books! Maybe we need to raise this further up the line? The articles on the Polish terrorist activities in Silesia during the Plebescites are a travesty of truth and what actually happened. Christchurch (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:POV-name

Template:POV-name has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.— BirgitteSB 18:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duchy of Opava

Thank you for creating this new article; it was recently moved to Duchy of Troppau. Perhaps you would like to comment on its talk? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarians

I'd like to warn you that I am not in a good mood today, and consequently have no tolerance for your ravings. Take a look at the issue. Some idiot calling himself "Suedois" made a total mess of a range of articles, including moving Maria Queen of Naples several times over and getting the redirect "Maria Arpad" (where that article was until last year) deleted somehow, which meant that about 40-50 links to the article via that redirect got deleted, and which I had to sort out; there was also the ridiculous move of Mary of Hungary, where she has innocuously been residing for years, to "Maria II of Hungary" (via several changes of name), Mary of Habsburg to the repellent "Maria of Castile, Queen of Hungary", and Maria Anna of Spain to the pointless and ambiguous "Maria of Spain, Holy Roman Empress". Now I have had to deal with the fall-out of all this rubbish and try to fix it, and I do not appreciate you interfering without the full facts and warning me for trying to fix a problem created by somebody else. Next time, actually find out the facts of an issue before sermonising, thank-you. Michael Sanders 20:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your mood swings, daily or otherwise, should not be our concern. In my opinion, you Michaelsanders have made several unwarranted moves and several blind reverts. Marrtel (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Job--but why stop there?

Thanks! re: this add, Much appreciated help. I seem to be the only one regularly contributing to the series lately. I'd lost an edit during a power outage that had about 5-6 of those synopsized, and haven't ever got back into a time block when I could focus on it again. Actually thought the article page was farther along, as I've been busy in the Gazettes workup and getting links to work (See templates listed on {{16char}}).

I think you got the wrong Ferdinand though, Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor was I believe technically the King of Hungary and Bohemia, not his daddy.

Yep, just checked he was appointed King in 1627 [1]. I'll fix that up, as you left out the key long plot piece--his interest in heading off the pograms of the eastern European jews, which plot is currently being serialized in The Anaconda Project.

Best regards // FrankB 22:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.