→Your GA nomination of Philip III of Navarre: stop being so bloody petty |
|||
Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
::Not being a pain on something so pointless would be a start for you. There are 6 million articles on WO: time to move on to do something useful. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 20:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
::Not being a pain on something so pointless would be a start for you. There are 6 million articles on WO: time to move on to do something useful. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 20:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::That is a thinly veiled way of telling me not to edit ''your'' articles. Time to grow up. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna#top|talk]]) 20:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
:::That is a thinly veiled way of telling me not to edit ''your'' articles. Time to grow up. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna#top|talk]]) 20:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::Yet ‘’another’’ unfounded ownership accusation? Time you read [[WP:CIVIL]] - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 21:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:07, 18 April 2019
m²
Hello, Surtsicna, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
- Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Izador Papo Article
I'm a family member of him. He was just married to Asya
You have been reported for revert violation
Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox peerage title
Template:Infobox peerage title has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox family. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Bailiff (Bailio) v. regent?
If I may ask, if some sources refer to someone as a bailiff and others as a regent, is this a real discrepancy or are the terms overlapping or even interchangeable? Berthold of Hohenberg was the bailiff/regent of Conrad IV after the latter's death... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, Lingzhi2. I do not know about Berthold in particular, but the terms are not interchangeable. The bailiff was a high-ranking official and could act as regent when necessary, and a regency was necessary after Conrad's death. It is possible that Berthold held both offices simultaneously. Surtsicna (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- There are other kinds of conflicting info too. I'm just gonna put it all on the board, and you and I can sort it all out when it's done. Thanks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Shootings
Hey Surtsicna. Regarding this, I don't recall editing, tweaking or changing the word, so you might be mistaking me for someone else. Regards - Musicfan122 (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, Musicfan122! I am referring to this edit. You changed [[terrorist attack]] into [[terrorism| terrorist attack]]. Surtsicna (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- But, the edit that you mentioned me in was regarding the "australia" link? Musicfan122 (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. I forgot to do it in the relevant edit. I probably should have just left a message on your talk page instead. Cheers! Surtsicna (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- But, the edit that you mentioned me in was regarding the "australia" link? Musicfan122 (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (pilot)
On 21 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (pilot), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a gay former British prince died fighting on the side of Nazi Germany despite loathing Hitler and the Nazi Party? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (pilot). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (pilot)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Fra Anđeo
What stopped you to remove both claims and both sentences, than ?--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Surtsicna (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- What, "excuse me"? What stopped you in removing both sentences based on source which you found inadequate, but is actually missing completely, and not just my input?--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- You may drop the thug attitude. This isn't a back alley in a shady neighborhood. The source is adequate. It was verified in a DYK review in 2016. It has since been removed from the website. It did not contain the information you inserted. Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- What, "excuse me"? What stopped you in removing both sentences based on source which you found inadequate, but is actually missing completely, and not just my input?--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the reason I reverted your edit was because your new link was actually linked to a re-direct to the original linked page in the article. Regards Denisarona (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
INUSE
Are you familiar with {{inuse}}? Its intent is to help avoid edit conflicts and let other editors finish their work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Of course. Please do. Surtsicna (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
DYK
Hi, Surtsicna ... Thanks for including me at Template:Did you know nominations/Fabiana Rosales ... most appreciated ... but I don't engage DYK, and you would probably have a better time getting through the process if you take my name off of the nomination :) :) I had big long fights with DYK for many years over their long-standing COPYVIO, BLP and sourcing issues, and there are probably still editors around who know I am no fan of DYK. I do appreciate that you included me, but think your nomination would be better served if you take me off. Nice work there ! If you need any help getting the nom through, please do ping me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, of course, SandyGeogia. It is unfortunate to see how many DYK articles make it to the Main Page before someone notices that something is off. I think Fabiana Rosales will be fine, though :) And I hope you do not mind my taking out a few direct quotes out of the article. I felt they were a bit too promotional and would possibly raise eyebrows at DYK. Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Got it! I actually had padded up the article with quotes only because it makes me crazy when images overwhelm text, but you've got a good balance now. Good luck, ping me if you need me. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank You
Last weekend was the 6 year Anniversary of your Editor of the Week Award. Glad to see you are still committed to improving the Encyclopedia. ―Buster7 ☎ 19:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Lady Rose Gilman
Hi, Surtsicna. I would like to know if you are interested in reviewing the deletion of this article, made by Justlettersandnumbers. I can't have access to the contents. Thanks in advance. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Lady Louise Windsor
A topic that you had commented on previously has come up again. Specifically, there is a new discussion here about using an Infobox royalty or nobility for Lady Louise Windsor. If you could possibly provide a comment there, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your help! -- Blairall (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
April 2019
Hello, I'm Path slopu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Johann VII, Duke of Mecklenburg have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. PATH SLOPU 12:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD
Hello.
Please read WP:BRD. Note that there is only one R in WP:BRD - so it's not Bold, Revert, Revert back, and then Discuss.
You've been reverted. Don't revert back.
Regards
HandsomeFella (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- HandsomeFella, this is a huge WP:BLP issue. We cannot have unsourced claims about living people. WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." For all we know, those names could belong to anyone. It could be a hoax. There could be a serial killer with no connection to the subject. It could be gibberish. It could simply be inaccurate. Without a source, we do not know. This stuff was added en mass without any prior discussion or consensus by a user who has since disappeared from Wikipedia. And with a source - it is painfully trivial. Please do not reintroduce such unsourced claims into a BLP. Surtsicna (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please self-revert, or I will report you. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I will not. Sue me. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please self-revert, or I will report you. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Philip III of Navarre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The article Philip III of Navarre you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Philip III of Navarre for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The article Philip III of Navarre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Philip III of Navarre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
... with thanks from QAI |
- Congrats for that, one of many! - Thank you for patience with some pipe link questions. While I believe that it is really rather minor (but still worth talking about), what about the topic of calling a female subject (never seen for a man) by first name throughout an article? Not minor. It was discussed, and I thought to everybody's understanding, here. Would you perhaps remind the (same) author, or are you tired? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, Gerda Arendt! Thank you for your kind words. I intended to bring up the use of the first name but seeing how I was unable to explain something as minor as piping, I doubt I would be able to get my point across. In my original edit summary I also noted that an adult man would never be referred to by his first name alone, but then removed that observation for simplicity. Perhaps I have got off on a wrong foot with the contributor, and you might have more luck. Surtsicna (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Never mind that last sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I laughed so much about that last sentence ;) - Thank you. I hope you enjoy the linked discussion, - I searched for it a while because I didn't remember that it was back in 2017. I used to have good relations to SchroCat in my early years but in 2015 laughed once too much. - I wonder what happened to John who initiated the Butler discussion. Miss him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I too have had good Wiki relations turn sour. I am fairly certain my archenemy is reading this :) Hopefully we'll all get along as well as we can. John's absence is certainly felt. I've recently started a biography of Georg Arends. You might be interested in helping out. His great-granddaughter seems notable too. Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call anybody an enemy, but "I'm fairly certain he's reading this", yes, I'm also certain. When I grew up "disruptive" described something necessary for new paths. - I'm quite busy but will watch your plans. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I too have had good Wiki relations turn sour. I am fairly certain my archenemy is reading this :) Hopefully we'll all get along as well as we can. John's absence is certainly felt. I've recently started a biography of Georg Arends. You might be interested in helping out. His great-granddaughter seems notable too. Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I laughed so much about that last sentence ;) - Thank you. I hope you enjoy the linked discussion, - I searched for it a while because I didn't remember that it was back in 2017. I used to have good relations to SchroCat in my early years but in 2015 laughed once too much. - I wonder what happened to John who initiated the Butler discussion. Miss him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
See BRD and use the flaming talk page before you start being a pain again - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Using the edit summary when reverting explained edits would make you much more pleasant to cooperate with on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not being a pain on something so pointless would be a start for you. There are 6 million articles on WO: time to move on to do something useful. - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- That is a thinly veiled way of telling me not to edit your articles. Time to grow up. Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yet ‘’another’’ unfounded ownership accusation? Time you read WP:CIVIL - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- That is a thinly veiled way of telling me not to edit your articles. Time to grow up. Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not being a pain on something so pointless would be a start for you. There are 6 million articles on WO: time to move on to do something useful. - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)