User talk:Gryffindor/Archive1

Please do not edit. This is an archive page.

Welcome

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

• Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
• To sign your posts (on talk pages, Votes for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
• You can experiment in the test area.
• You can get help at the Help Desk
• Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• If you made IP edits before creating a user account, you can attribute your IP edits to your account at Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit.

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- Utcursch | Talk to me

New, blank articles

Do you plan on expanding Francesco Farnese, Duke of Parma, Antonio Farnese, Duke of Parma and Ferdinand IV of Tuscany? Right now, they're just blank pages. As a general rule, wiki frowns on the creation of blank pages, even if they address notable subjects. Please take some time to write a brief stub, or else those articles will likely be marked for speedy deletion as empty pages. Feco 01:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hi feco. i think i added some information to the pertaining article? if something is still amiss, just let me know, ok? cheers

User:antares911 15:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Austrian crown image

Hi there. I noticed you uploaded this image - please can you provide its source? Thanks ♪ Craigy ♫ 13:20, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

hi there. got it from the German Language Version of Wikipedia. maybe someone can help me out how to do the correct copyrighting in that case, am still new and not quite used to things... cheers

User:antares911 15:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Subcategories

Please note that if a page is in a category, it should normally not be put also into a category of which that category is a subcategory. Thus, I reverted your edit putting Christoph Cardinal Schönborn into Category:Austrian nobility: The good cardinal is in Category:Schönborn, which is a subcategory of Category:Austrian nobility. Martg76 22:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ah ok I understand, I wasn´t aware of that. looking at the usertalk of the article, it´s interesting to see how controversy rages about his nobility. Antares911 22:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there was no disbute about his nobility, only about his name, since Austrian law doesn't recognize noble names. Martg76 20:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duke of Valentinois

It's Wikipedia protocol to use the English translation of foreign names and titles (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)); consequently, I've moved it back to its former title. — Dan | Talk 23:19, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you did the same to several other similar articles. Is there a recent policy change of which I'm unaware? If not, I think I'll move those back too. Regards — Dan | Talk 23:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think names should be kept in their original state, and not some translation with all the problems that it brings as well. The english name can always be added in the text, because a search-function will find it. English-speakers would do well to learn about other people´s languages... Antares911 09:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Much as I agree with you about learning other languages, the rules are the rules. Feel free to petition to change them at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. — Dan | Talk 17:44, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

yes, i am seeing based on that discussions there that this seems to be quite a hot point of contest... Antares911 22:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Svetozar Boroević

You cannot move pages to include ć on the English Wikipedia. You should especially not move pages and then not update redirects to it. Also, the von Bojna suffix is needless in the title. --Joy [shallot] 09:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The thing with diacritics is that only those from Latin 1 are supported, but not those from Latin 2 and other character sets. It's a known issue, we address it mostly with the {{titlelacksdiacritics}} template.

The von Bojna suffix is an honour, it's not essential and doesn't contribute much to the title. Especially given that it's a mix of German and Croatian text, in an English Wikipedia :)

I did use Boroevic for the new name. If you see the talk page, you will see that I raised this question myself ages ago. --Joy [shallot] 13:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ah i had no clue this was an english-wikipedia. so what does that have to do that his name was still Boroevic von Bojna?-) Antares911 19:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thai royals

I don't agree with moving the articles to their royal titles. Most english text at least starting with King Mongkut do not use the royal names, and their are often many different titles they had during their life, so it's usually hard to find the "right" name. As Wikipedia:Naming conventions says the most common form of the name used in English should be used. Maybe this should be discussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)? andy 21:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi there. thanks, but the naming conventions are the most retarded thing ever. i think we need to have a thorough discussion about this. for example queen consorts are named by their maiden name, even though nobody would know them under that. for example, Million-dollar question, who was "Mary of Teck". does anybody seriously know? i doubt that. (Answer:Queen Mary of UK. why she cannot be listed under that, is a riddle to me). according to those fine rules, Queen "Marie Antoinette" should theoretically be listed as "Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austria". who knows Maria Antonia, like seriously? sorry but this is just ludicrous, anyone can see that... Antares911 11:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is standard historical naming to use maiden name, eg, Alexandra of Denmark, Anne of Cleve, Catherine of Aragon, Elizabeth of York, Mary of Modena, etc. Consort names are used very very rarely, notably Marie Antoinette, and that is simply because of the unique circumstances of her death. Queen Mary of UK is unworkable. Which Queen Mary? Mary I? Mary II? Mary, the wife of James II? Mary, the wife of George V? etc. As consorts don't have ordinals they cannot be used normally under consort name. It is standard history style and standard encyclopaedia style to revert all past consorts to their maiden names, with a tiny number of exceptions. That is the agreed standard Wikipedia is following and will continue to follow. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 23:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

that still does not answer my question why we have Marie Antoinette and not Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austria. any comments? Antares911 23:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The words of Antares, "nobody would know them under that. for example, Million-dollar question, who was "Mary of Teck". does anybody seriously know? i doubt that." reveals clearly how unfamiliar he is with genealogy, prosopography, etc, as well as established practices in history books and in encyclopedias. Antares' this characteristic should be remembered always when Antares proposes some changes in substantial texts. Firtunately we have much better experts here. 217.140.193.123 22:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi there 217.140.193.123, don´t quite understand what your problem is, but please either start identifying yourself or leave me alone. cheers Antares911 28 June 2005 22:54 (UTC)

Abahai

Why did you revert my move? Not only did you do so without regard to Wikipedia naming conventions, but also without changing the text to fit the title, and without checking to see what linked to the article (thus missing the new disambiguation age that I'd created). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

titles like "Lady" are completely valid, check Wikipedia´s rule on "titles" for Lady and Sir. the title needs to reflect more the content of the article, and not give an abstract name that no lay person can make sense of. what is "Abahai" supposed to mean, a car, a horse, an object, a person? the article´s name should be Lady Abahai, nothing wrong with that Antares911

I agree that there's room for discussion, and I'm open to persuasion — but simply reverting without checking (or explaining) didn't offer me much reason to reconsider. My own feeling is that "Abahai" will mean no less to the average reader than "Lay Abahai" (especially as "Lady" is a translation of a title that in fact has a completely different set of uses from its English uses, and is thus likely to mislead). Doesn't the article give all the relevant information and explanation? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sorry, didn´t think someone would actually care much. well it´s quite similar like the case of Lady Murasaki Shikibu, Shikibu actually being the title. so we either name "Abahai" with the full chinese title, or use the english form "Lady Abahai". but Lady Murasaki is not listed simply as Murasaki, either with the shikibu or the lady title. alone it cannot stand, it´s confusing and misleading. i´m starting a discussion on this topic under here anyways hi there. [1] cheers Antares911 00:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've adjusted some redirects. The old page kept self-redirecting back and forth. Abahai is now redirected to Hong Taiji.

(copied from my Talk page)

hi there Mel Etitis,

actually that was a typo-mistake, it should have been Lady Abahai, i tried to change it back but it was too late, sorry about that.

in any case, can we agree on that? was is the procedure on renaming in that case? we go to the adminstrator? as far as I know, if a renaming is quite clear, then it can be done by the user, does not always have to be done by the administrator? Antares911 14:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So long as there's no disagreement, and the renaming is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, anyone can do it — but, first, if there is disagreement (as in this case) the discussion should be concluded before either side unliaterally makes the move, and secondly, the move must be done properly. That includes checking what links to the old article-title, making sure that there are no double redirects, etc. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi there Mel Etitis,

gotcha. alright, so how shall we proceed, any suggestions? User:antares911 28 June 2005 12:30 (UTC)

Qing Nobility

I think it would be best if we have a unified method of naming Qing nobles. The simpliest way to achieve this is by using their personal names, as they receive a myriad of sorted titles during their lifetime. I want to raise attention about this somewhere but cannot find an appropriate place. Colipon+(T) 20:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi there Colipon, sounds like a good idea, i am totally open for good suggestion. are you familiar with Qing titles? User:antares911

Naming policy

Discussion of naming policy has nothing to do with administrators. The issue is to attempt to find a consensus as to naming. It would appear that there is at least some consensus for changing how we name articles on Russian consorts, but no consensus on how we would change the names. There hasn't been enough discussion of non-western consorts to say for sure, but I'd suspect that a change on that policy would not meet with too much opposition. There does not appear to be any consensus to change policy for European consorts, so I suppose that will have to stay as it is. For the other two issues, I'd suggest that some specific proposals be made, and we see what the response is like. john k 29 June 2005 00:50 (UTC)

Royal titles

I have said that I favour naming the kings of Thailand articles with the formula, Ananda Mahidol, King of Thailand etc. Beyond that I don't wish to get involved. Adam 29 June 2005 14:00 (UTC)

Hi. Although I disagree with a lot of your comments about naming conventions, I do share your annoyance with the nameless user, and will back you up if you have any further trouble with him/her. Deb 29 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)

Further to the above, I don't really want to get embroiled in the naming arguments again, because I was heavily involved first time round. As long as the conventions we worked so hard to establish aren't demolished without lengthy consideration, I'll be happy -- I think we're at the point now where the questions being debated are of secondary importance. No offence to non-English speakers, but this is English-language wikipedia and there's no easy answer to the questions that are coming up now about foreign royals. Deb 30 June 2005 16:01 (UTC)

hi Deb thanks for offering your help. I hope you will agree that there is room for improvement on some of the issues here. I understand your concerns, and will keep them in mind obviously while we are trying to reach consensus.... Antares911 1 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

Luiz de Orléans e Bragança

Alles klar? Thanks for your message in my talk page. I'm going to discuss this in more detail in the project page talk, but let me address your questions: he is more commonly known as "Dom Luiz de Orléans e Bragança", although the word "dom" is neither part of his name nor a title or style, it's mostly an "old form" of the word "mister" that is no longer used in Brazil except for the Royals. So it wouldn't go in the article's title. That being the case, it appears that the more logical name for the article would be "Luiz de Orléans e Bragança". In my opinion, though, this would have a somewhat weird ring to it. It's not very usual to have articles about royalty, even pretenders, named as if they were about an athlete, a musician, etc. This would be likely to end up causing controversies. In the discussion in the project page talk, it was signaled that he does hold the style of "Prince of Brazil", so perhaps we could name the article "Luiz de Orléans e Bragança, Prince of Brazil". It's a bit lenghty, but it could be the solution. About the non-european naming conventions for royals, actually the Brazilian Imperial Family may be the only exception in the world: although it's non-european (naturally), they ensue directly from the Portuguese Royal Family. In fact the Brazilian Imperial Family would be the senior branch of the Portuguese Royal Family today, since the founder of the Brazilian Imperial House was the heir apparent to John VI of Portugal, renouncing his right to the throne to be Emperor of Brazil. All traditions, therein included naming conventions, were transferred directly from the Portuguese. So, the Brazilian monarchy is the only non-european royal family that, for all practical purposes, could just as well be European. Anything that might apply to the Portuguese royals applies to the Brazilian. Did I answer everything? Regards, Redux 30 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)

bom dia. i was just about to suggest that as well, maybe if you wish to name him like Portugese royals are named, that would be a good solution too. if his title is "Luiz de Orléans e Bragança, Prince of Brazil" I don´t see an issue with naming it that way. Antares911 1 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I too have been having problems with the anon at the IP 217.140.193.123. I have posted a comment of my own under yours in John's talk page. Maybe you'd like to read it? Regards, Redux 3 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

hi Redux, sorry to hear about that, I know what you´re talking about. maybe someone can just shut this guy down for a while, so he can cool down again? let me know if you need help.. Antares911 4 July 2005 09:04 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your interest and support. Completely agree with you, people like him can suck all the fun from Wikipedia. It's not worth the trouble, but then again it's philosofically complicated to just back down, since it means that the "geek", as you put it, gets his way and this only encourages him to persist in his attitude. Unfortunatelly for me, I've encountered several people like him, usually anons and I usually don't let them get away with it. But I've grown tired of it, especially since I feel I seldom get the support necessary to get things back in track (meaning, an Admin willing to get involved and do something), or when I get it, it's only after I've endured days, maybe weeks of abuse, intransigence and similars. This guy now is unbelievable, and keeps making preposterous accusations about me behaving badly, wanting to control articles (lol). It's to my credit that the only people who don't like to work with me are the intransigent, the abusive and the bullies. If you believe that this is a registered user using an IP address as an alias though, this information would definately be useful to back disciplinary measures against him. Let's see, if an Admin does get involved, you could tell him about it.
The discussions about the article' title, as usual with that guy, are really going nowhere, he won't compromise, won't discuss options, he only has his interpretation of the policy (which he knows all too well when it suits him) and he keeps going back to it. No point in making argumentations, he may read them, but he never really considers what you are saying, only enough to refute them somehow. If you like, you could take a look and give your impression, but you know he's got a disposition to be aggressive towards you, so you'd really have to be up for it... Regards, Redux 4 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

tell me about it!! god there are some really strange people around here sometimes. thank god i do have another life as well, although this whole wikipedia thing can be addictive, agreed :-) don´t worry about it, i know it can be frustrating, but in the end you will have the better arguments because you are able to listen to other people, whereas this guy just rams his arguments thru... not someone you would want to work with together in future. don´t let it get you down, keep it up. Antares911 4 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)

Hi again. As it turns out, I need other users to certify the anon's behavior on my RfC post. Since you've been abused repeatedly, could you maybe post there certifying it? The evidence to the abuse is already posted in my comment, but peer certification is requested. Thanks, Redux 5 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your words. I had already read your post in the RfC subpage. Incidentally, I might have to reformat the whole page (not your comment though, just mine). Apparently, there was a template format to be used that I didn't know of (this is my first RfC). I used another existing subpage as a paradigm when I was writing mine, but the user who created that had made this mistake, which I then duplicated... About the possibility of restricting discussions to registered users, I'd like very much to know more about that. Is there maybe a forum where discussions for that might be underway?? Regards, Redux 6 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the heads up in the discussion. The anon is participating in it (what a surprise...), so it may be that mine joining it could introduce a degree of animosity that would not benefit the discussion, since I feel that not enough time has passed since my biff with him. Notice, however, how Mackensen has already acknowledged his aggressiveness, being answered with yet more aggression.
About the racist remark you mentioned: I anticipate that it would be difficult to convince an Admin to block him because of that remark. You know I have no love for the guy, but his remark would be more on the side of "politically incorrect", but not down right offensive. Reproachable, but not punishable. That RfC I had started, and where you and Martg76 commented, well, an Admin deleted it. Certainly had something to do with the formatting issue I had mentioned, and which I didn't have time to correct. It's as I said, sometimes the community is far too bureaucratic to actually solve problems. I thought I'd start another RfC, or even go straight to an Admin, but I believe that, given my recent altercations with him, my opinion would be regarded as biased, and any request from me to discipline the anon could sound like some vendetta crusade and thus never taken quite..."seriously", for lack of a better word. As I see he continues to offend people, let's just keep compiling evidence, so that latter, when it has little to do with myself (and it's all in the past), we might be able to do something about it that will be taken into consideration. If someone else starts a RfC on him though, which is not that difficult, I'd probably leave my impressions. Right now, I feel that my hands are tied because I got personally involved and the bureaucracy of Wikipedia frowns upon it. Regards, Redux 9 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)

Hi Antares, nice to hear from you again. Well, the RfC was deleted by Radiant, but it wasn't really his fault. It was, again, the bureaucracy of Wikipedia's conflict resolution procedures. It's aimed mainly at solving problems, or punishing bad behavior, that may arise within one specific article or talk page, or a specific group of articles/talk pages. The RfC rules state that at least two different users must verify the problem being narrated, but it has to be the exact same problem. Apparently, it does not suffice to have a similar problem involving one same user. So, in a situation like the one we were facing, with a problematic anon being abusive to several users on several articles/talk pages, but only for a relatively limited period of time, it gets rather difficult to meet the requirements for the RfC to be validated. You see, if I were to open one narrating my problems with someone in one given article, and if you were to add your similar experience with the exact same user, but in a different article, with a different topic, it wouldn't count. That's what happened in that RfC, plus the fact that I did not follow the required format (and it got deleted before I could fix it).
Thanks for your confidence in me! :) Sure, I've thought about becoming an administrator. I do have the experience and a reasonably high number of edits, but there are other requirements. For instance, if I were to be nominated right now, the people who vote would certainly read the page histories of my recent biff with this anon, and that alone would probably be enough for my nomination to be opposed, since admins are generally expected to be a "people's person", that is someone who is extra-cool, capable of mediating and defusing problems, whereas I recently got involved in one, and certainly didn't defuse it. Not that admins never get involved in such problems, but it helps that your recent history is clear of them when you're being nominated. The page for nominating people for Adminship is: Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship. There, you list someone's name (one can also self-nominate for adminship, although that is not ideal), and then it stays open for any member of the community that wishes to vote (support or oppose).
On the old topic, you could take a look at you-know-who's talk page. He's opened, in that talk page, a section dedicated to personal attacks to you and myself. It is my impression that, under Wikipedia's official policy on personal attacks, we'd be authorized to erase that from the page, especially since that is not a individual user's talk page, but rather a general IP talk page. Policy allows for those concerned to delete personal attacks from articles and article's talk pages, but I'm not completely sure about how that would stand with a talk page, even if it's a general IP's page. Anyways, talk pages are not suited for writing manifestos against people, but you know... if we delete that, we'd be opening yet another conflict with that guy, and I don't think either you or I have the patience for it... Regards, Redux 19:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey. if you have some indication that "Arrigo" is a sockpuppet of the anon (that would actually be it, since he contributes more frequently under the IP address), and given that he's likely using it for deception, this should be reported.
About the link: actually, the colors red and blue are associated with a link to an existing page (blue) and to a [currently] nonexistent page (red). When you create an account in Wikipedia, you are given a page that is your user page and a talk page. The talk page is used primarily for others to be able to communicate with you, whereas the user page is yours to do with as you please. But the thing is you get them both completely empty, or more accurately, you get links to the pages that, once created, will be your user page and your talk page. Now, the talk page is usually started by whoever leaves you a message first (this is usually a welcome message left by someone from the Welcome Committee), but the user page is something entirely different. No one other than the user himself/herself is supposed to touch that page, except in some extraordinary situations, so if the user chooses not to write something in there, for whatever reason, the page will never be created, and thus the link will stay red. There are many users who never start their user page, and thus their screen-name appears as a red link. Anons don't have that problem because the system does not generate a user page for an IP address automatic identification (but it does generate a talk page, which we call a "general IP address talk page", so that people editing anonymously can still be reached somehow — trouble is, some IPs are shared, and so several people may receive messages in the same talk page, which is not ideal). If you think back, you may remember that, when you first started your account, the link to "User:Antares911" was red. As most people do, you probably clicked it immediately and wrote something on the page, which then created it and rendered the link to it blue. When people don't create their user page, it's a drag to others, because when you click on their screen-name, the system offers you to start the page, something you just can't do, unless you are the user in question. So you just have to click the "cancel" button at the bottom of the editing page or hit the links to the talk page or "user's contributions" (whereas, when you click on the link to an IP address, the system automatically takes you to the "user's contribution" list — but for the general IP, which means you might be looking at a list of contributions from several different people). But there's no policy that say people have to create a user page, so if they don't, the most one can do is politely ask why (if you want a reason) or encourage them to write something on their user pages (some people write just a few words, just so the page will be created and the link will be blue).
But even if a registered user chooses not to create a user page, they still get their own talk page, which is their own, and whenever they log on, they will get that orange strip informing them that they received new messages. So if you write something there, or if they get a warning for bad behavior, or about the imminent deletion of an image they've uploaded, etc., and they don't respond, they can't claim that they didn't know about it. One always know when one gets a new post on one's talk page: if one chooses to not read it, or read it but ignore it, one does it at one's own risk. So, a registered user can never be really unreachable, even if they don't have a user page. The talk page is still there. In addition, the ability to move pages is part of the "perks" of being registered, meaning, one doesn't need to actually create one's user page in order to have access to it, just log on.
I hope this was elucidating enough (although a little long, sorry). Cheers, Redux 01:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Polish Army

And again we have a lengthy voting on name issues - this time at Talk:Wojsko Polskie. Please join. Halibutt July 5, 2005 05:57 (UTC)

AFAIR you already voted once. However, the voting was restarted with more options added. Personally I support either the English translation of the Polish name or the Polish name itself, but you are of course free to disagree with me:)

Halibutt July 5, 2005 13:13 (UTC)

opinion sought

I have re-opened the issue of the royal stub at [2]. I think having it produce a noble link is farcical. Those who did it originally were no doubt well meaning but I don't think they really understood what they were doing. Nobility and royalty are not the same. Your opinions would be welcomed.

FearÉIREANNFile:Irish flag.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 7 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother

A couple of weeks ago, you moved the the article Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon to its current location. A couple of days ago I wrote a message on the article's talk page opposing the move. I'm copying it here.

"I disagree with this move. The current Wikipedia naming conventions (names and titles) (item 9 of "Other Royals") states: "Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine." While I agree that the current naming conventions could use improvement at the very least, until the policy is changed we should continue to follow what is written. Thus, I think we should, at least for the time being, move this article back to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon."

If you still object, please feel free to respond. If you don't object, then I'm going to move the article back to its previous location at least until there is a change to the Wikipedia policy. Thanks, 青い(Aoi) 9 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)

The main reason why I'm objecting is that earlier discussions have noted that while it was okay for the Queen Mother to be called that while she was alive, now that she has passed away she should be referred to as any other European consort. Plus, I had thought that that note concerning the Queen Mother was inserted prior to her death; after rechecking the page history, I was apparently wrong. Anyway, thanks for the quick response; I'll live with the change and won't revert your move. 青い(Aoi) 9 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)

Going through the Wikipedia naming conventions page history, I noticed that the following text was inserted back in April by an annonymous user without comment anywhere in the associated talk pages. [3]

However, there has been one notable exeption. From Wikipedia: "Shortly after King George VI died of lung cancer, on February 6, 1952, Elizabeth began to be styled "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother." This style was adopted because the normal style for the widow of a King, "Queen Elizabeth," would have been too similar to the style of her elder daughter, now Queen Elizabeth II. The alternative style "The Queen Dowager" could not be used because a senior widowed Queen, Queen Mary, the widow of King George V, was still alive."

If this was inserted without concensus then the note should be removed from the naming conventions page and the article on the late Queen Mother should be moved back to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon for the sake of consistency and to follow current naming conventions. 青い(Aoi) 10:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the bit unilaterally added in and renamed the page to where it should be as per wikipedia and general academic and royal naming standard. Moving it to QE the QM also played havoc with links. There were broken links all over the place. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 16:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

you are not allowed to change rules unilaterally without having it gone thru a discussion first. please revert the page to where it was and post a discussion about the rule it if you want. Antares911 17:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not. A user unilaterally and contrary to consensus changed the rules in April. It was was not spotted until now. The page has been turned back to the consensus version. That is the version which was agreed and stands until a consensus exists to change it. Users cannot simply unilaterally sneak in rules like that. There was no discussion or debate, just a sneaked in edit that no-one spotted. If you want to propose a change, fine, but it cannot be done by someone sneaking in a change when there was no consensus behind it, no discussion behind it. Until there is a consensus for change, the previous standard stands. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 17:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

who says it was changed unilateraly? this is strange, please put the rules back the way it was and if you want to change it, then place a discussion, simple as that.

Hawaiian royalty articles

When the Hawaiian royalty articles were first written (several of the articles, in fact, were first started and named by me), they followed the European format of naming royals (i.e. "Kamehameha III of Hawaii"). However, eventually there was a discussion (it's archived at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)/Archive 4) about removing the "of Hawaii" part. The argument was, if I remember correctly, that the main reasons why the "of country" in article titles for European royalty is because European monarchs from different countries often shared the same name. It was apparently decided that because the names of Hawaiian royalty (as well as Japanese royalty and other eastern rulers) are noticably different from other royals from around the world, the "of Hawaii" part of the title would simply become redundant (the logic is that we'd never find a "Princess Victoria Kaiulani of Belgium" or whatever).

A WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii) currently exists, with one of the goals being to develop naming conventions specific to Hawaii articles. 青い(Aoi) 03:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

hm, i can understand when they take out the "Hawaii" part, but to take out the whole thing and just leave a stub of "Victoria Kaiulani", i don´t know.... Antares911 16:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to moving the article to Princess Victoria Kaiulani or Princess Kaiulani. However, I'd prefer if we wait till a consensus exists in the Hawaii WikiProject. 青い(Aoi) 04:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

sounds good. do we post a discussion or where do we do this? Antares911 08:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Arisugawa

According to the Japanese version (ja:有栖川宮), #10 is indeed read Takehito -- Nik42 06:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User signing comments as you

I don't know if you're aware of this, but there appears to be a user (User:Bhinneka) signing (or perhaps copying) comments and then signing them under your name. An example can be seen here and here. 青い(Aoi) 12:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

hi Aoi. weird, i dunno... maybe someone trying to post as me? Antares911 16:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Celebrating

Hi! I've just crossed a symbolic milestone. Three thousand edits! I feel like celebrating. Have a cigar! Don't worry, I don't smoke them either, but it's all good :)! Cheers, Redux 14:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

hey, it´s a party, sure i´ll smoke it :-)

Copy-and-paste page moves

Why are you so fixated with adding the royal titles to the articles? That's such a minor point, making the contents better should have priority. But doing the page move with copy-and-paste is a very bad idea, as that one destroys the editing history. If the normal page move isn't possible because the target place as an article with editing history you have to go via the requested move page, as an administrator has to delete the blocking article first. andy 19:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

well i certainly was not the one who started moving and renaming all those articles.... Antares911 20:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point here. While I know you're only doing what you're doing in good faith, your actions are completely against Wikipedia policy. First of all, moving articles by copying them and pasting them in a new location is not acceptable because in doing so, the entire editing history of the article is lost. You have a "move" tabe, so use it. If such a move isn't possible, as andy noted above, then you must note your request on Wikipedia:Requested moves, as an admin must move it. Secondly, while I know you disagree with Wikipedia's naming conventions, until they are changed they MUST be followed. If they are not followed, then Wikipedia will become very unconsistent beast, which in turn would make the encyclopedia look unprofessional and hurt its credibility. Thank you, and happy editing. 青い(Aoi) 21:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

nope sorry i really am not getting the point here. how am i going against Wikipedia policy, when I create an article, name it according to the rules. then another user comes in, moves the article to somewhere else without having placed a discussion on it first. and then when i have to clean up the mess i have no other recourse, because obviously the "move" tab does not work? you think I didn´t try moving it back with the tab? so it´s ok for someone to move an article without a discussion, but when the writer of the article wants to have it back to the way it was, he has to contact an administrator? and there are clearly no clear rules regarding the naming issue, so i´m not really following what you are saying here... Antares911 22:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm well AWARE that you tried to use the "move" tab. That's why I'm telling you to request a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. The reason why the move tab doesn't work in this instance is because the location to which you're trying to move the article to has an edit history, and MediaWiki's software doesn't allow an article to be moved to a location that has an edit history (by edit history, I mean that the location you're trying to move it to has been edited at least twice; confirm this by checking the page history). But just because the "move" tab doesn't work doesn't mean you can just move the article by copying and pasting. This causes the edit history to be lost, which, if I'm not mistaken (please correct me if I am), is against the terms of the GNUFDL. Thus, the only way you can move it is by requesting the move on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Simply go to that page, make a new entry, and briefly state your case. Or, if you must move the article this very second, go and directly request a move on the user talk page of an admin. 青い(Aoi) 22:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am aware what you are saying here. that still does not answer my question why a user can simply move an article without placing a discussion. then when I try to restore it to the original state, I get criticised for trying to do so (I understand now that the copy+paste move was not warranted, however I saw no other recourse to restore it to the original name.) I find it ironic that I get criticised considering I was not the one who broke the rule on discussing article headings. considering there are no clear rules regarding this issue, why didn´t the user who moved the articles place a discussion on Wikipedia:Requested moves first? Antares911 10:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizing you for trying to restore it at the original location, I was criticizing you for doing the move via copy and paste. Yet, that doesn't matter now that you know the proper procedure. As for using Wikipedia:Requested moves, the only time you're required to use that page is when 1) the movement of the page is controversial (the move probably didn't appear to be controversial to the user moving it; the movement of a page right after its creation is actually common in Wikipedia, and it is acceptable as long as it's done in good faith; although, admittingly, to move any of the articles in question right now would obviously be controversial; thus the moves shouldn't be done until rough concensus is reached), or 2) the move is cannot be done without help from an admin (which was the case when you tried to move the articles back). Also, keep in mind that just because clear rules don't exist on Wikipedia:Naming conventions on a specific topic doesn't mean that there might be specific naming conventions elsewhere. For example, some countries have specific and detailed manual of styles. This is why Akihito is at Akihito and not Akihito of Japan. 青い(Aoi) 21:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are trying to tell me. but I hope that everyone understands my viewpoint without getting personal, that the user who moved the articles (where the naming is controversial and the rules not quite clear, I think we both agree on this) should have done all the proper procedures that have been described above. he did not. i´ll paste the requested moves because obviously that user has left me with no options. that´s all i´m going to say about this topic, and basta. Antares911 21:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, I don't think I was clear enough. What I'm trying to say is that when the user first moved the article, (s)he probably didn't realize it was controversial, thus, I can understand why the user didn't request the move at the request moves page. You should try to understand this also, if it is the case. Also, what do you mean by, "I'll paste the requested moves because that user has left me with no options?" Anyway, to help resolve differences, perhaps the pages in question should be posted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment? 青い(Aoi) 22:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

that´s ok, we probably just had a case of miscommunication, no hard feelings? and what i meant was "I´ll post the requested moves because that user has left me with no option", no need to panic, every human makes typos.. Antares911 13:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for soliciting my opinion, Antares. I'm sorry you've gotten jumped on a bit here, but page moves are a little tricky, and it's best if you understand our process before you take ANY further action -- every mistake along the way (yours or others) makes it harder to untangle once everyone agrees on where the page should be. Others have outlined it above.

Your next step should be to invite those who disagree with you to discuss the issue on the talk page(s), as the admins attending to Wikipedia:Requested moves will want to see evidence of discussion and agreement -- they are only carrying out a request, not handing down a decision on who is right. Agree among yourselves first.

I see that you have used edit summaries to invite people to use the talk page, but you need to use them yourself -- not everyone sees the edit summary, and some will disregard it when the summary is attached to what they see as a "hostile" action. Use the page history to identify who is objecting to your actions, and leave messages on their talk pages with a link to your points on the talk page. Lay out your arguments concisely and politely. Assume good faith. Wait for a response before taking any action.

Next, please review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), and refer your collaborators to it as well. Because most royal titles (King, Queen, etc.) are not used in article titles, many Wikipedia contributors may be unaware of the guidelines there that allow lesser titles such as "princess". Remember that even if the guidelines allow it, that it may not be the best solution in this case -- listen to your collaborators' arguments as to why they prefer it otherwise, as they may have a point you haven't considered.

Compare the article titles against others in the same or similar Categories, to see if there is an agreed-upon standard.

Review Wikipedia:Redirects, and remember that no matter what the final decision is, redirects will exist (or can be made) at every variation of the title, so that anyone searching for or linking to the article in question will still be able to find it, no matter what the actual title. Nothing will be "lost", no matter what the decision.

I agree that appears that you have been working in good faith and trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines. I just think you need to take a step back and relax a little, treat your co-editors calmly and with the respect you wish to be treated, open a discussion, and focus on finding a mutually agreeable solution, not on enforcing your own solution on others. Thanks again for asking my advice, I hope it has been helpful to you. — Catherine\^talk 03:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not think that I do not respect you, Antares. I do. But going by your comments I don't think you realised just how serious a cut and paste job is. Wikipedia operates in a legal framework in which contributors are required to be listed (even if only as an anonymous IP number) and so get formal credit for a contribution to a page. A cut & paste is a cardinal sin on Wikipedia because it means that the legal rights of contributors to the page that is cut and pasted are obliterated. For example, on another page, regarding another cut and paste job elsewhere, a user wrote

I understand your viewpoint, however i have stated what happened in that particular case where a user simply moves an article completely disregarding the naming convention and rules (see discussion above). so please do not accuse me of breaking rules in a lecturing manner when in this situation the users before completely disregarded them in all categories. I have now posted a renaming request, i hope this particular issue is settled now. Antares911 10:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Antares. I understand how you must be feeling, but don't be tempted to run away. If you make mistakes and acknowledge them, long-standing wikipedians will always be sympathetic. These other so-called "users" come along every so often, with the sole aim of attracting attention to themselves on wikipedia, I suspect because they are poor at forming relationships in the outside world. They always go away. If you are a dedicated user, you will still be here when the anon is long gone. Deb 11:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I will look out for your proposed changes on the relevant talk pages and add my comments. Deb 17:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Could you please go through your contribution history and make a list of articles which you have moved via copy and paste? I'm not trying to spite you by requesting this, but you have a rather long contribution history and you probably remember what you've been moving around. Plus, your copy and paste moves MUST be fixed and merged. 青い(Aoi) 08:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

All I mean is that any moves you made via copy and paste have to be fixed, and the easiest and more simple way to fix them is by merging these moves into the original article that they were copied from. If there were no real changes to the copy and paste move (as in the case of Emperor Akihito of Japan, then a simple redirect will suffice; however, if other users have come in and edited the article after it was moved, then an admin will have to come in and manually merge the edit histories of both articles, which would thus fix the legal issues mentioned by User:Jtdirl in his previous (deleted) comments. Btw, when I use capital letters, please don't think I'm yelling at you; it's a bad habit of mine to use capitals when I want to emphasize something; this is largely because where I work, messages are typically posted in print, where is is generally acceptable to use caps when trying to put emphasis on something. However, I realize it's bad ediquette and I apologize for doing so previously; I will refrain from using capitals in the future. 青い(Aoi) 17:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Antares. I wanted to thank you for your 200% support and your kind words in my RfA. It means a lot to me. I shall do my very best to live up to your vote of confidence! Thank you so much. Redux 01:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a minute

I'm working on it now. Pakaran 20:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll recreate and block the old account now. Pakaran 20:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Szlachta

I and Emax wrote a lot about szlachta, rule of thumb is he wrote most of the smaller articles, I wrote the few larger ones. I have not heard of Lanckoroński family, it is likely one of the minor szlachta families. If you have info on them, by all means, feel free to create an article about them, best way is to copy conent of one of other families (from list of szlachta) and change approprietly. Feel free to ask me if you have any further questions. Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just removed a message intended for someone else. My apologies. --Eleassar777 my talk 08:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

no problemo :-) Antares911 09:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tale of Genji

salut Askewmind, i see that you have downloaded some beautiful images of the Tale of Genji. [4]

I am trying to find one as well, for the article i created on Suetsumuhana, however I cannot find the internet source where you got the image from? i was maybe going to ask them as well if they have one for Chapter 6. could you help me please? merci... Antares911 5 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

Hi Antares911, the images for the Tale of Genji where scanned by me directly from the book reffered The Burke Albums, property of Mary Griggs Burke. There is an illustration on chapter 6 I will scan it for you but be patient because I have lately too much work around, maybe I could by end of next week. Askewmind | (Talk) 5 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft

hi Antares, I have verified Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft in Guinness Book of World Records (the library had the editions '83,'87','92 till '95, it is in '92-'95), it is exactly written like this. Except that they transcribe the 'ä' as 'ae' which leads to a count of 80 characters instead of 79. Wilfried