User talk:Surtsicna/Archive3

Jordanian Royal family tree

I have omitted the patronymics (bin Abdullah etc) because they are obvious from the family tree. Wives (only wives of Kings) wouldn't be too difficult to show on here, but at your request I have left them out. BartBassist (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Abdullah I 1882-1951 Emir 1923-46 King 1946-51

Talal 1909-1972 King 1951-52

Nayef 1914-1983

Hussein 1935-1999 King 1952-99

Ali 1941-

Asem 1948-

Muhammad 1940-

Hassan 1947-

Abdullah II 1962- King 1999-

Faisal 1963-

Ali 1975-

Hamzah 1980-

Hashim 1981-

Talal 1965-

Ghazi 1966-

Rashid 1979-

Hussein 1994-

Hashem 2005-

Omar 1993-

Abdullah 2007-

Hussein 1999-

Muhammad 2001-

Abdullah 2001-

Thank you very much! It's great, as always! Surtsicna (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, I think ya's boo boobed on Crown Prince Hussein. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the simpler version, now that I am happy with the more complicated one. Corrected the link for Crown Prince Hussein. Added Nayef bin Abdullah I and his two sons. BartBassist (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Bart, you went to a lot of work. It looks really impressive. Surtcsicna, I've an idea. Seeing as there is quite a group of us who regularily edit articles on royals and the nobility such as you, Jack1755, Frania, David, as well as myself, I think we should start a Royalty/Nobility project. This way, we can monitor what everyone is working on and if, for some reason, one of us is unable to complete a new article, infobox, whatever, one of us can help out. Today, for example, I started an infobox but before I completed it, I lost my server connection. This would also allow articles to be corrected for errors, typos, etc. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. We could join that group. Surtsicna (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The links between the Hashemite family trees are most interesting. The below is taken from this site, and dates can be found by navigating from here. BartBassist (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only are their links interesting, but their ancestry is interesting too. Did you know that the Hashemite family are the agnatic descendants of Fatimah, the only child of the Prophet Muhammad who survived him and had children of her own? Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, they claim to be. Most European royal families claim to be descended from King David, but I doubt they can prove it ;) BartBassist (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's very likely that their claim is true, unless, of course, wife of someone in the line was naughty. See this line of descent. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right - I'd forgotten how much more recent Muhammad was than someone like King David. Anyway, I'm fairly pleased with the family tree below, so I'm thinking of modifying it to make it suitable for the page on the monarchy of Iraq. Once the job is done fully, the tree below and the tree above should between them show all the male-line descendants of Ali bin Nasser, i.e. all the people theoretically eligible to inherit the throne of Jordan. BartBassist (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You remember that you once looked at my family tree of the Greek royal family? For the moment I am simply developing the below family tree along similar lines, trying to uncover links within the family. The innovation of representing spouses in the same box, with descent lines for both spouses (with the husband's line on the left and the wife's on the right), has allowed me to condense this family tree, though obviously it breaks down where somebody has had more than one spouse. Note that, among other things, this family tree now shows all four grandparents, and all four great-grandfathers, of Faisal II of Iraq. BartBassist (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad III 1767-1858 (37th generation desc. of Muhammad)

Abdullah Kamil Pasha ?-1877

Abdullah Pasha 1845-1908

Ali Pasha 1833-1871

Hussein bin Ali 1854-1931 r.1917-24

Nasser bin Ali 1863-?

HEJAZ

IRAQ

JORDAN

(IRAQ)

Ali Pasha 1859-~1932 m. Rahma bint Ali

Salim Pasha

Ali 1879-1935 r.1924-25 m. Nafissa Khanum 1886-1958

Rakan

Faisal I 1883-1933 r.1921-33 m. Huzaima bint Nasser 1885-1935

Abdullah I 1882-1951 r.1946-51 m. Musbah bint Nasser 1885-1961

Jamil Ali ?-1938

Zeid 1898-1970 (r.1958-70) m. Fahrelnissa Zeid

Hussein 1918-1998 m. Badia bint Ali 1920-

Ahmad Hazim m. Jalila bint Ali 1923-55

Abdullah 1913-1958 Regent of Iraq 1939-53

Abdiya bint Ali 1907-1958

Talal 1909-1972 r.1951-52 m. Zein al-Sharaf 1916-1994

Hussein 1902-1982 m. Maqbula 1921-2001

Ra'ad 1936- (r.1970- ) m. Margaretha Lind

Azza 1906-1968 m. Anastassios Haralambides

Raifia 1910-1934

Rajiha 1907-1959 m. Abdul Jabbar Mahmud

Ghazi 1912-1939 r.1933-39 m. Aliyah bint Ali 1911-1950

Zeid 1964-

Firas 1969-

Fahrelnissa 1981-

Huzaima 1940- m. Ghazi 1939-

Faisal II 1935-1958 r.1939-58

Hussein 1935-1999 r.1952-99

Mired 1965-

Faisal 1975-

This thing which I have created above is now aesthetically hideous because I have kept adding to it; I have therefore retrieved an old version from the userpage history. Sorry for cluttering the page. BartBassist (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hussein bin Ali 1854-1931 Emir of Mecca 1908-17 King of Hejaz 1917-24

Nasser bin Ali 1863-? Sharif of Mecca

Ali 1879-1935 Sharif of Mecca and King of Hejaz 1924-25

Faisal I 1883-1933 King of Syria 1920 King of Iraq 1921-33 m. Huzaima bint Nasser 1885-1935

Abdullah I 1882-1951 Emir of Jordan 1923-46 King of Jordan 1946-51 m. Musbah bint Nasser 1885-1961

Jamil 'Ali ?-1938 Sharif of Mecca

Zeid 1898-1970 Pretender as King of Iraq 1958-70

Abdullah 1913-1958 Regent of Iraq for Faisal II 1939-53

Ghazi 1912-1939 King of Iraq 1933-39 m. Aliyah bint Ali 1911-1950

Talal 1909-1972 King of Jordan 1951-52 m. Zein al-Sharaf 1916-1994

Ra'ad 1936- Pretender as King of Iraq 1970-

Faisal II 1935-1958 King of Iraq 1939-58

Hussein 1935-1999 King of Jordan 1952-99

Zeid 1964- Jordanian Ambassador to the UN and USA

Dispute

Hi Surtsicna, could I get your help with the resolution of this dispute? Thanks, -- Jack1755 (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Taksen is petitioning you on MT's talk page. We can't allow the Archduchess to be subsumed into Taksen's yolk like the poor Grand Duke! -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Monarch to royalty

Hey. Alright, I don't get why you changed the infobox from "monarch" to "royalty" on David II of Scotland, but it's screwed up some of the info. For instance, it no longer shows that he was Earl of Carrick. So what's the reason? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Talk:James I of Scotland has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Your edits to the talk page are legitimate, but your edit summary is unhelpful. Some people find the term "bitch" offensive, and this adds an unnecessarily heated tone to the discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, what edit summary? I never edited Talk:James I of Scotland. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I responded on my page ... just letting you know. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant Talk:James I of England. PatGallacher (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Margaret of France

I didn't realize the issue with the two Margarets. Feel free to move it back, I suppose, but such odd parenthetical disambiguation is certainly annoying. I suspect most people wouldn't really think of Henry's wife as a "real" queen, since her husband isn't listed on the canonical list of monarchs, but I know historians would. So do as you please. TysK (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Surtsicna, how are you? I've been creating and expanding articles on polish nobility. I've joined the WikiProject:Poland and Royalty and Nobility. You should join the royalty and nobility one. Thanks--David (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Maria Theresa of Spain

Hello Surtsicna, I added some comments to the discussion page of "Maria Theresa of Spain" (wife of Louis XIV of France). Perhaps you would like to join since you were also part of the discussion sometime ago. Besides, you seem to be more reasonable than the other person discussing there. Regards, DanyMountbatten (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Johanna of Austria

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at Jack1755's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at Jack1755's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Maria Theresa

Thanks! And, of course, congrats! You can speak Bosnian? lol. I didn't know that! I think the English MT almost meets FA criteria, All it needs is some alt text for the images. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Crafty Surtsicna! Ah, I established that after some reasonable snooping around over at the Bosian Wikipedia, Surt', or should I say Amsal? LOL. -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Walls of Dubrovnik

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

Maria

Sorry, I can speak very good German, it would however be handy if the font of the text was readable, it looks like a load of worms. Could she be the daughter of Elizabeth of Serbia, who you said married a certain "Louis". I'll have a look around and get back to you. Did I tell you I've created the article on Elizabeth of Kuyavia's father? Also I've added the banesses to the bosnian royals. Cheers--David (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find anything. I'll ask some people about speaking german--David (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anna Maria Luisa, Electress Palatine of the Rhine

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

Hey Surtsicna! Kako ste? Could I get your opinion on the Medicean-Rhenish legal predicament (as linked above)? Hvala, -- Jack1755 (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Surt'. We haven't heard from you in a while. Are you ok? -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're back! It has since been archived, here is the new link: User_talk:Jeanne_boleyn/Archive_5#Anna_Maria_Luisa.2C_Electress_Palatine_of_the_Rhine

-- Jack1755 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Nele Roderburg

Not nameless, but I don't think the family had publicly released the name since the Roderburgs are just very extended members of the Swedish RF. I got it from here via Nobiliana and Hein is usually in contact directly with the families, so it is accurate. Morhange (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Imperial and royal titles

Hello and thank you for your reply to my postings. My opinion is that the section you referred me to is vast labour to little effect. Sorry. Headings should be devised on the basis of how a person was known by most people in the period of his or her renown. Thus, "Mary of Teck" may have a certain simplicity to it, but was there never another Mary of Teck? And if not, surely some of the titles devised are ambiguous. "Queen Mary, consort of George V, King of Great Britain" was unique and always will be. To take another example, surely another Elizabeth Woodville is alive today (more likely several), but no one named "Queen Elizabeth, consort of Edward IV, King of England" will ever exist again. And how does the current British consort fair in the titles game? Not "Philip of Greece". "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" is rather more posh than "Mary of Teck." And how about "Queen Fabiola of Belgium?" The current practice is inconsistent bordering on chaotic. Again, my apologies if this seems blunt. But I wanted to give you a quick reply. My very best wishes to you for taking this area of discussion seriously. Torontonian1 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Alice of Bourbon Parma is a Spanish Royal as Infanta (Spanish Royal Family Template)

Princess Alicia of Bourbon-Parma is a Spanish Infanta (Princess) by Marriage. See article. Ducal Titles are used in Royal Families Navigation Boxes (Infante Carlos is showed as Duke of Calabria. Alicia has Spanish Royal Status as Infanta. She isn't well-known in Spain and most Spaniards don't know Infanta Alicia.

--Proof02 (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Royalty to Monarch

Hello. Did as you suggested. Thanks. --Bill Reid | (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Surtsicna, how are you? What have you been working on recently? Have any new royal mysteries? I've been working on the Masovian branch of the House of Piast. I've also been working on Catherine of Hungary mother of Anna of Swidnica, I still can't find out which queen was her mother though I've proved she was a hungarian princess. I've also found out that one reason why Albert II of Germany married Elisabeth of Bohemia, because Catherine of Bosnia was her great-grandmother and so layed claims to some lands. Thank You--David (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Coronation of the Russian monarch article

Thanks so much for starting the Coronation of the Russian monarch article a few months ago. I hadn't even noticed it until a couple of days ago, and I've spent the last couple of days expanding it significantly, with several images, a table of coronatons with dates, details of the ceremony itself, a multimedia section, and a list of references. As a royalty afficianado (sic!?) yourself, and since you were the originator of the article, I'd be interested in your opinion of it. Some might say there's too many illustrations, but I think not; all illustrate pertinent portions of the article, and all are really wonderful portraits or photos in large size when expanded. I'm still "tweaking" it a bit, but would be very interested in your opinion of it, if you have a moment. Thanks and happy new year!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I deeply appreciated your comments, and am glad you like what I've done with the article. I'm also glad to know that you think there's not too many images there; personally, I think they are all good images, and really enhance the readability and enjoyability of the article. I appreciated your suggestions on the article's talk page; consult my replies there and tell me what you think. I changed all of the titles from "Emperor" and "Empress" to "Tsar" and "Tsaritsa," except as noted on the talk page. I also inserted an extra paragraph into the opening section explaining the "Emperor" vs. "Tsar" thing and that this article uses the latter title (and why it chooses to). Let me know what you think; if you have any objections to my approach or what I wrote there, or suggestions for something better, please feel free to let me know! Thanks again! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User: Bosnian Royal Family

Thanks for correcting the links. Now I would appreciate if you stayed away from a private space. Bosnipedian (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you did not have personal interest/agenda, then you would not have been snooping around. You are way too nosy for someone who poses as an independent contributor to open sources. You remind me of a self-proclaimed lord of all Bosnia pages, but I am not the one who will handle your issues here. Bosnipedian (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I suggest opening a investigation as it seems they are likely puppets. ◅ P  R  O  D  U  C  E  R _(TALK) 22:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Good job on getting rid of the sockpuppet but now he's spamming his imaginary support through multiple ips. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Peerage articles

I don't think those "Line of succession" additions you have made to a number of peerage articles are a good idea. Naming the heir apparent or heir presumptive is enough for Wikipedia. This isn't Burke's Peerage after all. Tryde (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Hello Surtsicna, I've been back creating articles for the Masovian branch of the House of Piast and I've stumbled on a puzzle. I've been looking at the final members of the family before Masovia became part of Poland. There was four children born to Konrad III Rudy and Anna Radziwiłł: Anna of Masovia, Janusz III of Masovia, Stanislaus I of Masovia and Sophia.

Look at this image [1] Sophia is not on it for some reason and she did live well into adulthood. The image is of Anna and her brothers, but Sophia is not on it and their referred to the last Masovians. Sophia was not even the first of the four to die plus she married and had children, look at these [2] [3]. Jeanne, do you know anything about Sophia or somewhere where I could find some answers because it's bugging me. I know after Sophia and the brothers died Anna tried to claim Masovia but wasn't allowed it because she was a woman and her only child was female. Though Sophia's children could have claimed it but for some reason they didn't. Did Sophia fall out with her family?

I've found out that Sophia and Anna where the final siblings living so Sophia could've claimed Masovia for herself and her children but she didn't and this is more reason for her to be in the painting. I need answers! Can you help me?--David (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for your help, the thing is Sophia was the eldest child so she would have been the heiress to her brothers, either that or this image of (Anna?) may actually be a misidentification and it may actually be of Sophia. Say if her name was Sophia Anna or Anna Sophia, sometimes people can get mixed up. I'm planning on expanding their articles and I'm hoping to create one for Sophia, the lost sister as I've called her. Sorry for including Jeanne in the message, I sent her the same one but she doesn't know anything either, do you know of anywhere where there may be some answers or someone else I could ask? Thanks again!--David (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

validity of this image file

For File:Boricevic_dynasts_Bosnia_sm.jpg, could you check it out and comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bosnian_Royal_Family? Is the information correct or is it part of the hoax? Please comment under "note to the closing admin" so the admin knows what to do with that file, thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Arms

The rodent looks somewhat odd to me. I'm no expert in Eastern European heraldry, but the rat is a strange choice. Even if it is a beaver, which I doubt, that would also be rare and only usually found in puns on names. Besides which, the heraldic beaver as a charge is really a sort of lion with a paddle tail. This looks like a cut and paste job. Far too realistic to be heraldic. The maces are odd as 'supporters', too. In actual battle, the mace tended to be used by bishops as being more in line with their holy profession. Ah, the good old days.... But those would be blunt maces, not spiked ones. Apart from the bishops and King John of Bohemia (who was blind and had to be pointed into the battle, whereafter all his side kept well clear as he just hit anything that came near), maces and flails were more lower order weapons. Swords were rather expensive, but anyone could rustle up a mace or a flail. Also odd is the presence of a bend sinister - the bar across the middle. This is most often - but not exclusively - taken to refer to some dishonour. Its presence on a shield charged with a rat is definitely unusual. As to the helm, I quote from Helmet (heraldry): "Open-visored or barred helmets are typically reserved to the highest ranks of nobility, while untitled nobility and burghers typically assume closed helms." But what is this one? Looks closed to me. I can't comment on the mullets (stars) being six pointed - in England they are more commonly five pointed but this is not fixed, and while in Germany six points are more usual, I have no idea on Bosnia's usage. I'm not setting myself up as an expert - but I have done some research into both the weapons and blazoning of the medieval period. I am open to being proved wrong. Peridon (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip II of Spain

I'm not sure reverting that Anon IP will do any good. Just be careful and don't get banned for reverting over 3RR. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review

A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You have made more than 20 edits to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get listed as Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ingeborg of Norway - queen mother?

Hello! I have noticed what a good job you do regarding royalty here, and I have noticed something that you may be able to correct. One editor insists that Ingeborg of Norway was a "queen mother de facto", both in her article page, and in the article of queen mother. The reason given is the fact that she was the mother of the monarch, and that she was the regent of her under age son. I am from Sweden myself, and perhaps I misunderstand the title of queen mother - which does no exicst here - but is this really a correct conclusion? Political power has nothing to to with the position of queen mother, and the fact that a woman was regent does not varrant calling her a "de facto queen mother", right? --85.226.47.128 (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See reply and friendly appeal here. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The user SergeWoodzing seems to have the POV that a queen mother is the same thing as a queen regnant. Beacuse of this he concludes, that because she was the regent of Sweden, she can be compared to a queen mother. If we follow that wiev, it would be more logic to compare her to a queen regnant. SergeWoodzing is very difficult to communicate with. I do not wish to point my finger on anyone, but it is truly very difficult to speak with him. I do not think I have the strenght to do so. For the sake of wikipedia, someone should try to correct this. Igeborg is placed in the article of queen mother, even though she was not. Perhaps you would like to correct this, or know someone else who could? For the sake of my peace of mind, I can't continue this. --85.226.47.128 (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ingeborg was de facto Queen Regnant 1318-19, and then by that virtue de facto Queen Mother from 1319 till her death. That's how I interpret Prof Authén. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out (I was perhaps a little unclear); my main concern is about the queen mother article, although the Ingeborg-article may also be better with this correction. --85.226.47.128 (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Elisabeth of Hungary

Hello Surtsicna, I know it's been a while since we spoke about this but do you think Elisabeth, daughter of Charles I of Hungary and sister of Catherine of Hungary was married to Władysław Opolczyk? He stayed in Hungary when he married his first wife Elisabeth and her parents are disputed, the dates even fit and he was Duke of Opole. Do you think this is a match?--David (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with editor Fernande

Surtsicna, there was recently a discussion in the talk page of article Gaston, comte d'Eu [4] about and editor called Fernandoe who insists on changing the meaning of sourced text although the source does not says what he writes. To be more clear, he insists on adding "surnames" to royals.[5] [6] The discussion, as you can see since you were also part of it, agreed that his editions do not make any sense. Worse: he did not bother to participate in it. I am tired of serving as nothing more as a watch dog reverting his edits. Something must be done about him and fast. --Lecen (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mary of Modena

Surtsicna, why are you doubting the factual accuracy of Mary of Modena? If you actually checked, you would see that Louis XIV created James II (then Duke of York) Duke of Normandy in December 1660. Please revert your edit. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at Jack1755's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at Jack1755's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at Jack1755's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at Jack1755's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy Birthday

Happy Birthday, Surtsicna; although it was yesterday! Best wishes. I hope you had a lovely day.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! It was quite a happy birthday. It hasn't been so happy for years. Lots of nice presents certainly helped :D Surtsicna (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's always fun to receive lots of presents!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

From Portugal

In that time (1383-1385), there was not such thing as personnal union. The problem was the possession, the owning of the kingdom of Portugal. You can read the testament of John I of Castile in the Chronicles of Pero Lopez de Ayala (Henry III, year II, chapter VI). There he wrote that perhaps the kingdom was of is own, perhaps of his wife Beatrice, that he was not sure. This doubt of the king of Castile represents the complete destruction of the marriage treaty of Salvaterra. More, means that even he didn´t recognized his wife as a truly sovereign of Portugal. For him, it´s may be, but in the treaty of Salvaterra she was firmly, strongly recognized as nominal sovereign. Who killed the possibility of his wife become sovereign of Portugal was John I of Castile himself, when he tried to become sovereign all mighty and ANNEX Portugal to his domains, without any wright to do so. There was in Portugal a kind of parliament called Cortes, and only the Cortes have the power to aloud such thing. He tried to eliminate this Cortes, to convert Portugal in one of his own domains without any representative organ of the cities and county councils (in português, Concelhos). And this was the truly cause of the war. In the portuguese Wikipedia my designation is Jorge alo. My excuses for the errors, I rarely write in english. Um abraço e estou sempre à sua disposição. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.157.243.179 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

After writing to you I saw that my contributiom was not welcome. There´s no problem, but now you have another time a bad article with plenty of errors and some lies. For example, NEVER EXISTED A MIGUEL, SUN OF JOHN I OF CASTILE, and he invaded Portugal in December of 1383, both Fernão Lopes and Pero Lopez de Ayala say it, and those two are PRIMMARY SOURCES. I only can say that you must read the chronicles of Fernão Lopes (Portugal) and Pero Lopez de Ayala (Castile). Also I must say that´s funny the use of the word «controversial». For example, the notice of the birth of Beatrice it´s in Crónica de D. Fernando, chapter LXXII, wrote by Fernão Lopes, and her birth was when Henry II of Castile was near Coimbra for some days. So, couldn´t be in December 1372, but in February 1373 (you must read the chapter). If you want to be in controversy with Fernão Lopes, be my guest. For the rest, at the moment I have not time. In a couple of months I will return in English Wikipedia to try to make some corrections in the articles about 1383-1385 (but you have reason, my english it's horrific). Cumpliments88.157.243.179 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Greek gods family tree

It already exists. BartBassist (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

About Beatrice of Portugal, from Jorge alo

You know my english is very bad, so, I have a proposition to make: as I see that you like history of kingdoms, I ask your help to correct my spelling or to do yourself some changes based on historic sources from Portugal and Castile.I can give you the sources and we can try together to translate these sources to english. I made a alteration of the text of «Controversy», in the article, and I gave some bibliograhy about this question (there´s no controversy among portuguese historians) in the page of discussion. The testament of John I of Castile prove that the question wasn´t about a personnal union, but about who was the owner of the portuguese kingdom. To John I of Castile, maybe the kingdom was one of his possessions, maybe was possession of his wife Beatrice, and the pope (anti pope Cllement VII) should decid the question. So, for John I of Castile, he was competing with his wife as a candidate to the throne.Jorge alo (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of James, Viscount Severn

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is James, Viscount Severn. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Abu Dhabi.

Hi, Surtsicna!

You write: tha

-- If dead people are really not supposed to be included, then let it be.

But considering a † next to a Muslim name, I have seen lots of photos of Muslim authorities like Kings, Sheikhs, Muftis and so on of even the most hardline Muslim countries like KSA, wearing crosses from Orders presented to them by Christian or former Christian countries.

Check this video, for instance: http://www.islamicthinkers.com/index/files/video/rulers/fahd_cross.rm

You can also discuss here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Abu_Dhabi_Princely_Family —Preceding unsigned comment added by СЛУЖБА (talk • contribs) 04:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Prince William, Duke of Gloucester

Hi, Surtsicna! How are you? As I value your opinion, I would like you to point out to me anything that seems to you awkwardly phrased, etc., in my latest article: Prince William, Duke of Gloucester. Thanks! -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Prince Philip

Oops - sorry - this came out of another debate and I didn't see that reference. Thanks for correcting me on that. Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo

Hi, I've replied to your query on my talkpage for continuity. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for help on 'Massimo' family article

Dear Surtsicna,

I hope you can help me with regarding to the article on the 'Massimo' family (see link here), given your interest and knowledge of European heraldry. I am a regular user and editor of Wikipedia, with a particular interest in the Roman Papal families.

During some work on Wiki I came across the page on the 'Massimo' family of Rome. I noticed that the article, which had remained essentially the same since 2006 (both historically and with reference to the current heirs), had been suddenly been changed. Specifically, the last paragraph on current holders of the titles 'Prince of Arsoli' and 'Prince of Roccasecca' and their heirs had been erased, the sources removed, and only a single person referenced - called Prince Fabrizio Massimo-Brancaccio. When I reverted the article to its original form - which had gone through 100s of edits over the years - it kept being essentially vandalised back by the same person (the editor 'Fabritius'), who eventually (in the 'History' section of the page on 13 Feb 2010) identified himself as Fabrizio Massimo-Brancaccio and a member of the family (with a clear conflict of interest).

After repeated edits, the page was protected, and admin Nick D asked Fabritius and myself to start a discussion regarding the disputed last paragraph of the article. As I indicated in the note I left on Nick D's talk page (see this post), and a subsequent note I left on the 'Massimo' article talk page (see this post), I am happy to lay out the arguments and discuss the differences with Fabritius in a calm, fact-based and non-personal way.

By way of background, while the page was blocked for repeated 'edit warring' over the last paragraph, I would like to point out that I have never actually added any content to the article that wasn't already there for years before I first edited. I have only reversed the new 'vanity' edits by made by 'Fabritius' in Jan 2010 (and subsequently) and added authoritative, original online sources to back up the original paragraph. The paragraph in dispute has remained essentially unchanged since 2006 (see the edit by 'CARAVAGGISTI' on 28/09/06 in this version, para at bottom), until Dec 2009 (see the edit by LeilaniLad on 2/12/09 in this version, para at bottom), apart from 'non-structural' changes (such as a person passing away and being replaced by their heir). Between Sept 2006 and Jan 2010 many editors have altered content on the page, but the paragraph in dispute remained essentially the same.

I am not trying to push my own content or views, I am simply trying to revert the article to the state it was in before my first edit, after a sustained and repeated attempt by an editor with a clear conflict of interest (Fabritius has admitted that he is a member of the family and writing about himself - see conflict of interest link below), from changing the article to focus on himself, without providing the source back-up required.

I have begun to lay out my arguments in a researched, sourced and referenced way - easy even for someone unfamiliar with the topic to understand - on the 'Massimo' talk page. For example, I have answered Fabritius's key argument - that only he is entitled to the Princely title and the other members of the family are not - with a detailed response, with multiple references and links to an original and universally-recognised source. Fabritius presented his key arguments in the following posts: his request for an edit to the protected page (see this post), and his second request for an edit (see this post). In response, I have replied with a comprehensive answer (see this post for full details of my research) which I believe comprehensively supports my argument.

I am genuinely trying to have a civilised discussion, based on scholarship and facts, but I am not getting a reasonable response on the other side. Instead of Fabritius providing me with his counter arguments and trying to reach a solution, I am the subject of insults - being called a 'liar' (see this post), 'ridiculous' (see this post), and 'biased' (see this post). I am genuinely trying to work according the the Wiki guidelines on dispute resolution, yet I am finding it hard to have a reasoned exchange.

I fear Fabritius's clear conflict of interest (see this post on 'Fabritius's conflict of interest' for details) is making him unable to make clear, concise arguments based on real research and sources/references. Fabritius has been very active since the article was protected, repeatedly trying to appeal to Nick D directly on his talk page to just revert the edit (see these posts), yet since I have posted my detailed response to his questions well over 24hrs ago, he has been silent. As the 'conflict of interest' link above explains, I am a neutral editor, am categorically not a member of the Massimo family (despite Fabritius's strong insinuations) and do not have a conflict of interest.

Nick D (administrator) has asked me to solicit comments from editors interested in this area and I would like to invite you to comment on my arguments, which as I said I have detailed here (see this post for full details of my research).

I would welcome your comments on the 'Massimo' talk page and hope that you will support my research.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at these edits/articles?

I've noticed you edit the Spanish royalty/nobility articles and was wondering if you could check on the edits/articles of this editor[7]. I have stumbled upon a few of his/her creations and attempted to make them legible. Maybe this person would listen to your advice, since my recommendations have been largely ignored. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth I Legitimacy

I've actually had this discussion before, q.v., thanks. [earlier discussion]Alwpoe (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The question is not about whether Elizabeth and Mary are legitimate half-sisters or not, but whether there was an accusation they were not. Anne Boleyn died because of these accusations. This is both a historical fact and an integral plot point to the novels. You are welcome to your opinion about the historical truth of Elizabeth's legitimacy, but you can't change history or the novel by your bias or your vehemence. I have returned this crucial point to the article about Beware, Princess Elizabeth. Thank you, Alwpoe (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

See discussion page for novel Beware, Princess Elizabeth. --Alwpoe (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Alwpoe, you need to get your facts straight. Anne Boleyn was not executed because Elizabeth was allegedly fathered by another man. She was charged with High Treason. Elizabeth was declared illegitimate because Henry wanted his marriage to Anne to have been invalid. Paternity had nothing to do with it. Mary had also been declared illegitimate, however, I see you have chosen to overlook that wee fact. I am amused that you consider a romantic novel to be an academic source which you use as a reference book in which to wage an edit war with an editor like Surtsicna who is extremely well-informed on the subjects of both history and the peerage. Sorry, but Beware, Princess Elizabeth doesn't strike me as being particularly scholarly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that it concerns these articles or is any of my business directly, but it is sad to see two good WP editors using unnecessary sarcasm and rudeness againt each other to try to make their points. How nice it would be if we all could try harder to discuss things with no such highly contageous pollution added to our good faith and interested work here! I am really trying hard nowadays. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, dear SergeWoodzing! It's hard (actually impossible) to discuss anything with a person who believes that we shouldn't say who was a person's father unless we were present when the person was conceived or unless we have DNA testing results, with a person who refuses every kind of compromise and stubbornly insists on using their own (blatanly wrong) version. Imagine someone insisting that the article about the Crown Princess of Sweden states that she may or may not be fathered by the King of Sweden. What is one supposed to do in such cases? Anyway, I'm glad you came to my talkpage. Let me introduce you to User:Jeanne boleyn, a user interested in all spheres of history; her talkpage is a place to visit. Surtsicna (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello SergeWoodzing. Surtsicna, you might be interested in my latest two articles: Anna of Trebizond, Queen of Georgia and Eudokia of Trebizond. I find the Byzantines absolutely fascinating. All that intrigue and cruelty against a splendid, glittering semi-Oriental background.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the Byzantine court was always a good playground for mean women. Imagine how Margaret of Anjou and Anne Boleyn would have loved it! The articles are really interesting and are not just about geneaology. The East is wonderful, isn't it? Surtsicna (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Anne might not have lasted long as you wouldn't have found too many empresses with the patience of Catherine of Aragon in medieval Constantinople! Margaret might have fared better as she had a way of charming the soldiery! I like to write articles about people that offer more than just their bloodlines; unfortunately there are so many people whose lives are a complete mystery apart from than their ancestors, husbands, and offspring. I like the Pontic Greeks and the alliances they made with the Turkmen. Just think Eudokia, daughter of an Orthodox emperor, actually lived in a Turkish harem! I really enjoyed writing those two articles-thank you, Michael Panaretos!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice to chat with you both a bit - hello Jeanne Boleyn! Since I have quite a temper myself, I have had to learn (the hard way) that any- and everything can be discussed and debated with no sarcarm or rudeness, sticking meticulously to the facts, asking in a clinically neutral manner for sources etc. And that's no matter how much we might be tempted to ridicule and sock it to people who seem to be absolutely impossible and/or off the wall. It would be very nice to see that you both agree with me about that basic truth, and how much nicer it really is for all of us if we don't use WP as a vent for our vitriolic talents but just do good work without it. I too do good work, I hope and think, but that's no excuse, is it? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Surtsicna, I have made my statement on the edit war noticeboard. So far nobody has replied, but it being Sunday morning CET, it's probably too early. That editor made well over 3 reverts, and you were quite right to report him/her.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

RE:A list of Bosnian consorts

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

Can you help?

Hello Surtscina! I have asked you for help before, and you have always been very helpfull. I have recently been threathened with being reported and investigated during a conflict with editor SergeWoodsing, but I have no idea what I have done wrong! It is about this subject: Talk:Countess Palatine Eleonora Catherine of Zweibrucken. What I did there was basically to delete information which was put there without source : when SergeWoodsing insisted it remain, despite the fact that it was un-sourced, I at least tried to clerify it by information from her sisters article. SergeWoodsing now threathen to report me and investigate me for trolling and disruptive editing. I have no idea wat I have done to deserve such accusations. I often edit here, and I may not be an expert on Wikipedias rules, but what have I done to deserve such threats? Have I done something so bad as to deserve those accusations? I must confess I am a little sad by this. Was it because I added a clearifying from her sisters article about a question regarding them both? I did'nt want to do that, and I did not do it in my first edit. But as SergeWoodsing kept insisting that the un-referenced information remain, I felt it should be at least clearified. Was I threathened like this because I edit from different IP:s? I can't help that my IP changes, that the way my computor works. I have been in disagreement with editor SergeWoodsing before, but can't an editor be in disagreement without being threathened with being reported as a troll? I would be gratefull if you could help. I do not understand what I have done to be labelled as a troll by an editor, because I deleted un-referenced information from an article. Was it wrong? And can SergeWoodsing report me as a troll for this reason? --85.226.47.210 (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Trolling, Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I also suggest that you create an account, which would solve many problems. Place {{fact}} next to unsourced statements and wait a few days before removing them. Try using Google Book Search to find a source. The rest of your problems should be solved by discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you are very helpfull. It does not seem like he has any foundation to accuse me of being a troll. It sounded very threatening when he said he was going to investigate and report me. I do not know what that really means? I have placed a fact-tag on the un-sourced statement he wishes to keep, so I suppose it is up to him now to source it. If he can't, I will remove it. It is good to know that would be correct. The problem is, that it seems very hard to discuss with SergeWoodzing. It seems as if he has regarded me "disrespectfull" and "provocative" because I have contradicted him, so I don't know how to solve this without a third party. I have asked for a third opinion, as you can see, but I don't know if I did it correctly. If he continues to accuse me of things, is there somewhere in Wikipedia were I can ask for help? --85.226.45.21 (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The best thing for you to do is to create an account. It is free. I also suggest that you read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct that it is best to edit from an account. I must admit, that Mr Woodzing and I have been in conflict over other articles in both English and Swedish wikipedia, and the discussion have almost every time resulted in strong emotions from his part and wording such as those in the discussion above. This have made me a little affraid that an account would make me exposed to more of the same kind. I feel embarrassed to say, that I am a little afraid of his attitude. But if his threats is truly as un-varranted as it seems, then perhaps I should not hesitate to edit from an account because of one user. You have been most helpfull providing me with these links. I also understand that you do not wish to be involved in a dispute. It also seems that the dispute is about to be solwed. Thank you for all your help. --85.226.43.194 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of List of Holy Roman Empresses and German queens

A tag has been placed on List of Holy Roman Empresses and German queens, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Casablanca2000in (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Beware, Princess Elizabeth

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Beware, Princess Elizabeth. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Austrians

But then what about consistency? That is surely important too! Also, why have you redirected them all, we are all aware that this is ot a legitimate move for articles Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Katharina Šubić of Croatia

Katharina Šubić of Croatia is the only one I can think of, have a read about her--David (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Who wants to do me a big favour?!

Well, Surtsicna! How. Are. You? Could you send me your e-mail address, so I can elaborate? [email protected]. Merci beaucoup. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You reserve the right to say no. Seriously.

By the way, it isn't even funny how it took me five seconds to track you down on facebook. ;) -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice on getting format consensus?

Care to give me some advice here? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Heya

Sorry I couldn't reply on facebook earlier! I was going for lunch, and I was already late! How was your day? -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Habsburg Infanta/Infante of Spain

I've been wondering for a long time why most of the children of Spanish monarchs from Charles I of Spain to Charles II of Spain were changed to X of Austria. I notice a while back but haven't pay much attention to it. I've seen no diccussion on such moves. These moves seem to leave their status as Infante/Infanta of Spain in the dust. What do you think of it?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Duchess of Normandy

Thank you for providing the answer to QEIILS's question at Reference Desk/Humanities. I hadn't realised the medieval queens consort of England actually used the title. Now, I know they did. Thanks again!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh by the way thanks for the answer. It wasn't the answer I was looking for, but thanks anyway. :) I was talking about after 1204 not between 1066 and 1204 because I was aware of their use of the title during that time. But it's there continual use after France took back the Duchy that I'm a little interest in. Notice in my List of Norman consorts User:Agricolae took out a considerable chunk of the list I have work so hard on.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elizabeth of Bosnia

The article Elizabeth of Bosnia 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Elizabeth of Bosnia for things which need to be addressed. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For your work and dedication on the Elizabeth of Bosnia article. ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox issues, 1st Earl of Angus

Um, what's the prob here? The man was married to a Princess of Scotland, he was the progenitor of a dynasty which for some time ruled Scotland de facto. His blood runs in the veins of not just the present British Royal Family, but that of Monaco and other extant European Houses. The direct male line descendant of the 1st Earl of Angus has arguably, act of settlement notwithstanding, the first claim on the throne of Scotland following the failure of the Windsors. I have changed the box to the Royalty Template, which was not in use when I created this article. It is not very helpful to the project to remove information, without replacing it with a suitable alternative, which is what you have been doing. Brendandh (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Titles in Infoboxes

Howdy Surtsicna. I noticed some of your edits lately on my watchlist and I have some questions. Why are you removing the queen mother titles off the succession box on the bottom of articles? I understand your removal of courtesy titles like Princess of Portugal but should you remove Queen mother. There are still some on other English consorts and a lot of Empress-Mother on Roman/Byzantine Empress. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the info.

-

No citations on 'Isabella I of Castile' page

Hello Surtsicna, I was reading the 'Isabella I of Castile' page, and saw that your name occurs several times in the edit history there and couldn't help but notice that there was not one single citation on the entire page -- not even a 'references/' tag in markup! Nice article but it needs citations, throughout. Regards, GWillHickers (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In-line citations removed

Hello, Surtsicna! I hope you will be able to help me with this problem.

I have recently provided several sources to the article of Sophia Magdalena of Denmark. I see that you have also participated in the discussion. These references were provided as one user, User:SergeWoodzing, have questioned some information in the article in what seemed to be a rather heated argument. Now, however, returning to the article to rephrased the text, I find that User:SergeWoodzing have deleted all of the references, claiming that it is necessary to provide page numbers for them to be accepted. I can confirm that every references provides the information asked for, and after having spend a whole day on this, is it truly necessary to visit the library to look up even the page numbers? Now, I am very reluctant to enter in to this conflict, as it seen to be quite heated. Can I ask you for an advice? Is it acceptable to remove references and then claim that they are no references? I would be most gratefull for your assitance. --Aciram (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your reinstatement of rubbish

SergeWoodzing is abusing the talk page of an article to slander me. Nothing to do with the article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You can contact an administrator if you feel that a user is attacking you personally, but you shouldn't remove or alter the comments of other users. Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are not even an admin, I see. Just a busybody. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave you an advice, so that you don't get blocked. But seeing that you yourself engage in real personal attacks, I don't think my advices will be neccessary anymore. Surtsicna (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me advise you on policy: read the standard exceptions on Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with Other Editors/Communicating with Your Fellow Editors#Editing or Deleting Existing Comments. You had no business restoring discussion of my person. Now please correct your error. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What you did is not covered by either exception. "In general, the rule for editing or deleting a comment that you or another editor has posted to an article talk page is simple: Don't." Talk:Sophia Magdalena of Denmark is not a private chat room for SergeWoodzing and you; everything that happens there is the business of all Wikipedia editors, including me. You, on the other hand, have no business telling me what to do and what not to do. If you wish to keep breaking rules and risking a block, feel free to revert my reversion (for some reason, seeing you blocked wouldn't make me sad anymore). Surtsicna (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please remember to keep a civil tone, both of you. I haven't read these comments, but just to let you know Surtsicna, blatant personal attacks may be removed from anywhere, by any user. It is usually recommended to leave a small note clarifying the removal to make it clear to other editors what was removed so that any other comments referring to them do not appear out of context, and to make it clear why the comment was removed. You are quite right that standard procedure is not to edit others' comments except where an unambiguous violation has occured, however. Sorry to intrude on the conversation, just thought I should advise you of this policy for future reference. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Giftiger_wunsch! Don't worry, the "discussion" seems to have ended five days ago. This is the comment he removed; I didn't consider it a personal attack. The user accused for it has built a good reputation here and I can't imagine him attacking another user, even though I myself often disagree with him. Giftiger_wunsch, please let me know if I was wrong and if it was indeed a personal attack. If it was, I owe someone an apology. From my point of view, it wasn't. Cordially, Surtsicna (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you were quite right to use your own judgement, and I have to agree that that comment was by no means a personal attack, and its removal appears to constitute vandalism. I just thought I would leave the note to let you know that your statement of policy didn't appear to be quite right, and that personal attacks may be removed. By all means use your own judgement as to whether a comment is a personal attack or not and whether or not its removal could be justified however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating Balkans-related article

Surtsicna, I just started editing this article here: May Overthrow. I added what I could with the one single reference I have which is C.L.Sulzberger's excellent Fall of Eagles. Alas, while the author gives a highly-detailed account of the Alexander I assassination (derived from an interview with a member of the assassination squad), he only covers it in a couple of pages in his book. Would you happen to have any Serbian sources? Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll be able to find information about the assasination in Bosnian, Croatian or Serbian sources. I'm currently working on the article about Mary of Austria (1505-1558), so I may not be able to go through the sources right away. I'll be happy to translate the Serbian Wiki's article if you need it. Surtsicna (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a worthwhile article. I believe the creator is Serbian. The May Coup had unforeseen far-reaching consequences on the world stage as it ultimately led to the event at Sarajevo.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I find myself utterly fascinated by the Serbian Obrenovic dynasty. Yesterday I created an article on one of its members: Natalija Konstantinovic. When you get some free time, would you please add her name in Serbian to the article? Thank you!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Their fall is most interesting - well, almost as interesting as Queen Natalia Keshko. I added the name in Serbian. Should we rename the article to Natalija Konstantinović or Natalija Konstantinovich? It seems that Wikipedia prefers having the letter ć.The letter ć is extremely common in South Slavic surnames and is featured in mine. Surnames without ć are usually of Turkish origin, such as my mother's. Surtsicna (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes the c you suggest is better. I don't have that feature on my Italian keyboard which is why I never used it for the article's name. Thanks for your help!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I just created another Obrenovic article: Princess Anka Obrenovic! She even had an illegitimate daughter by her sister's husband-which she named after her sister!! LOL--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian?

Hey Surtsicna. I'm trying to created a List of consorts Transylvania and I was wondering if you understand Hungarian.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't. It's not even a Slavic language. But I would be happy to help in any way I can. Surtsicna (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so finally I'm finished all the actual Princesses of Transylvannia. I'm going to go further into the wives of the vajdas of Transylvannia. I was wondering if you know what is the female equivalent of a Voivode or better yet the Hungarian form. Don't tell me duchess or princess. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I have nothing to tell you :( The word vojvoda (voivode) means the same thing dux (duke) means and thus the wife of a voivode is a duchess. In my language, the wife of vojvoda is titled vojvotkinja, but I have never seen a feminine form of voivode in English language texts. Surtsicna (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

on Serbia-related articles. It is very much appreciated.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you, Surtsicna, for your help in enhancing the Obrenovic articles with images and name translations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't do that much! Thanks anyway :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes you did. Those two photos and the Cyrillic translations really enhance and have improved the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Anka has been nominated

I have just nominated Anka for a DYK! I hope she passes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Elizabeth of Bosnia

Great job, Surtsicna! I am busy IRL right now, but I will read through the article again during the weekend just to make sure everything is OK and hopefully pass it as GA. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

re: Maria Theresa of Austria

Hi, Surtsicna, thank you for your message. I must warn you that 18th century European monarchs aren't exactly my forte, but I would be glad to help you refine the prose and fix technical things here and there, especially if your goal is FA. Were you going to open up a peer review, or should I make comments on the article's talk page? I highly suggest PR if you plan to have more than one person review, but of course it's not required. Just let me know. :) María (habla conmigo) 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll post my comments at the talk page then, if you don't mind. In my experience, it's easier to have reviewers' suggestions and such in a centralized location, such as an article's talk or PR, so it's easy to find and so that reviewers/contributors can readily communicate. I already see a couple things that would confuse a layperson such as myself: "The least inbred Habsburg ruler for centuries", for example, made me do a double take -- context is sorely needed, because wow, but said context currently located out of the way in a "note" disguised as a citation. Consider moving the background info into the "Background" section, perhaps, and keep the cite in its place? I probably won't be able to comment in full until later this weekend, if you're all right with waiting. María (habla conmigo) 20:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait; I've finally read the article and left a detailed list of suggestions/comments on the article's talk page. María (habla conmigo) 18:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all wearying! I enjoyed reading it. :) Best of luck with it, and do please let me know when you've nominated it at FAC. María (habla conmigo) 12:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mary of Austria, Queen Consort of Hungary and Bohemia

The arms as you requested.

File:Coat of arms of Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary by Alexander Liptak.png

[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may ask assistance, since you were appreciative of my work. I have some editors not familiar with heraldry arguing my images are not Wikipedia material, centered around the coat of arms of the O'Neills that I made. If you could simply go to the Irish people talk page or Heraldry WikiProject talk page and express any amount of support, it would help end this debate sooner so I can continue on illustrating instead of wasting my time on here arguing. Kindly, [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Two more Serbian-related articles

Hello, I'm just letting you know that I have since created two more articles: Ljubica Vukomanovic and Persida Nenadovic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Westling's ancestry

Hello Surtsicna:

I have seen you deleted the ahnentafel chart for Daniel Westling. I think your reasons are correct, but I also think that to include those charts in a person like Westling is fine. What would be really irrelevant would be writing articles about Westling's close ancestors. So, why not to keep the ahnentafel chart as in Letizia of Spain, Fabiola of Belgium, Mathilde of Brabant or Henri? I am sure there are many other articles including ancestries that are not so important, but they exist. Please let me know if there is a forum or discussion about this matter here on Wikipedia. I would like to read what others think about.

Regards,

--Gonzaloluengo (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I am so sorry I did not see WP:NOT before. I am surprised that WP:NOT includes genealogies. Thank you! --Gonzaloluengo (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling

Hi Surtsicna! Please don't add links to copyrighted content. It is not allowed per WP:ELNEVER. Thanks, Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I should have bothered to check if linking to Youtube is alowed. I saw a link to Youtube in the article about the Crown Princess and I immediately assumed it was allowed. Oh, well. Errando discimus! Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (again): Just to clarify, Youtube links aren't forbidden, but extra care needs to be taken to ensure that the linked material is not a violation of copyright, as it may take Youtube a while to address videos which are copyright violations. Generally user-submitted sites should be avoided as they are generally not reliable sources, but there is no major problem with linking to youtube videos where appropriate (for example, you might reference a televised interview and link to a youtube video for convenience as a web copy of that interview). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation! Long story short, it seems better to avoid linking to Youtube unless the video has been there for some time, right? By the way, I love that "talk page stalker" tempate :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, more important is to check whether or not the video is a violation of copyright yourself before adding the link; we shouldn't rely on youtube to check copyright status, rather it's a good idea to try to find out the copyright status of the contents of the video, and as is the case for uploaded images, only use it if it's uncopyrighted, permission has been given for its use, or at the very least with a fair use rationale. I haven't been involved in many articles with links to youtube articles, but based on the explanation of policy I believe that this is correct. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Princess Anka Obrenovic

is on the main page as a DYK.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A question regarding Serbian

What does this mean in English: Nisu imali dece? I believe it means didn't have children. Am I right? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Good guess! You are right, it means: "They didn't have children." Watch out, you might even learn the language ;) Surtsicna (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And Umrla? Does it mean died or death?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it means "died" (the subject of the sentence being female). Surtsicna (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. One of those Serbian Wikipedia articles says Simeona (Anka's daughter) died in 1915. Thanks again for your help.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Bosnia

Hi Surtsicna! Great job on the Elizabeth of Bosnia, I hope you will make it a GA! If you care for an advice: The lead should be expanded to explain a bit more about what is said in the article. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you. What do you suggest we should mention? I thought everything was there in a nutshell. Surtsicna (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The laed should summarise whole article. It is not wrong even if some info is repeted in the body of the article. So, you could generally expanded the lead, maybe even to a three paras (now there are only two, and they are relatively small). As for minor things, you can add: (As queen consort, Elizabeth was overshadowed by her domineering mother-in-law.) - the name of mother-in-law?, (Elizabeth was murdered after being imprisoned by the rebels..) - who are those rebels? Read WP:LEAD for further improvment. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick point

Monsieur, I was just going to say that I have noticed that you have moved a lot of articles recently and I wanted to kindly ask if, should they be part of a template, (i.e. Maria Christina, Duchess of Teschen; Austrian Archduchesses etc) would you add the links into it so that they are all correct?! Monsieur le Duc 00:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, gospodine. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Surtsicna, we haven't spoken recently, how are you? Are you still working on the Bosnian nobles? I myself have been working on royalty from Armenia and Cyprus. Thank you--David (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I did notice Maria Theresa has been improved well done! I haven't been back long, my recent articles include Alice of Korikos, Eleanor of Aragon, Queen of Cyprus, Joanna, Duchess of Durazzo and Constance of Sicily, Queen of Jerusalem--David (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Attack?

What do you mean by attack?! That is just ridiculous! I just can't stand ignorance, it drives me mad [lol]! Sorry if I have made you feel like that! I am disappointed that I have but I resent being made to feel useless by anyone! Hope your ok anyway Monsieur le Duc --16:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S Where do you live (I am just wondering)?

I was just being nosey! And I live in England, near London :) Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Portuguese infantas

Category:Portuguese infantas, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Albert II of Belgium

Howdy. Succession to the Belgian throne, is explained at Monarchy of Belgium article. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

None of the Belgian monarchs reign began immediately after their predecessor's reign ended. From July 31 to August 9, the Belgian throne was vacant, Albert still held the title prince of liege. He didn't acscend the throne until he took the accession oath before Parliament (on Aug 9, 1993). GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Madame de Lorraine

Hey, why did you move her? It may imply to some people she was duchess of Lorraine in her own right like her sister! It may confuse people I think =\ Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that she is better known as a Duchess of Lorraine than as someone born in 1612? It's simply a better way to disambiguate her from her namesakes. Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol not really I think it is misleading! I will sort something out ;) Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You think that she is known for being born in 1612 and not for being Duchess of Lorraine? I can't see how it can be misleading - she was Duchess of Lorraine, wasn't she? The first sentence explains that she was not Duchess of Lorraine in her own right. Surtsicna (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugh William Grosvenor

You moved Hugh William Grosvenor to Lord Hugh Grosvenor. I reverted this edit. Honorific titles are generally not used to begin the title of a biographical article in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Titles_and_styles. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In relation to your reply on my talk page: If you are right, the Wikipedia naming conventions need to be re-written. The naming convention above states quite clearly that "Honorifics and other titles such as "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Mister", "Mrs" etc. are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known (as in Mother Teresa, Father Damien)." That's pretty unambiguous and based on the convention, it is generally incorrect to include the honorific in the title, even though it seems that it is widely done for children of peers. Should I have looked? Not sure - I checked the convention and, in my view, that should be enough. If everyone is breaching the convention means that either the convention is wrong, or everyone is doing the wrong thing. My preference is that the naming convention gives the correct guidance to editors and that it, thereby, provides the consistency you are looking for. Right now, if we assume the convention is right, almost everyone else is wrong. I regret stumbling into this, actually, because I certainly don't want to pick a fight! Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on my talk page. It would be excellent if that information could also be included in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Titles_and_styles either directly or as a link to the page/section you quoted. I'm no expert on articles on royalty or nobility, so maybe you would be better placed to make the change? Also, I am not sure about the use of "Captain" in Lord Hugh Grosvenor's article. I would have thought it was better to refer to his rank elsewhere in the article, as in "Grosvenor reached the rank of captain..." Any thoughts on that? Thanks for your patience and courtesy! Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Queen Draga

Why did you moved queen Draga? That is not her official name, and she was married to Obrenović, and she took his last name. --Tadija^speaks 14:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In English language literature, she is best known as Draga Mašin.[8] She is rarely called Draga Obrenović.[9] Draga Mašin was her official name at some point of her life; even if it wasn't, Wikipedia doesn't always use "official names". Surtsicna (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but what are you pointing at? only one for draga mašin, and 7 for draga obrenović. And google search should not be relevant for for common name. And she is queen, so she had her husbands last name. You shouldn't moved it without discussion. I propose revert. --Tadija^speaks 14:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, something is not working right for me here with search. Ok then --Tadija^speaks 19:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

names

Hello, why do you keep moving pages (i.e.Beatrice of Portugal, Duchess of Savoy) to incorrect titles?! The example I have given is wrong one two counts as she was not a queen consort and was Duchess of Savoy by marriage as I'm sure you well know! Margaret of Savoy (1410–1479) has also been moved to her correct title. Kindest regards Monsieur HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that she was Duchess of Savoy by marriage has everything to do it it! That is a foolish thing to say! As for the example s you have given they Have all been moved to names such as Maria of Austria (1528–1603) so hmmm, I don't agree with your point at all! You are such a hypocrite! You have caused a problem for all these pages in the first place by removing the dates of their which link to the disambiguations! How is that helping at all? HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All I said is that she has not been moved to Holy Roman Empress! How is that attacking your, don't be so dramatic! You are the one who is making himself out to be a victim! I just want consistency for Wikipedia thank you HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mademoiselle de Montpensier was arrogance, he was only doing that because I had written it! Calling someone a hypocrite is true, everyone is entitled to their opinions and you are just being difficult =( HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving

Hey Surtsicna. Can you help me? I need help proposing a move the right way. It's Wilhelmine of Prussia, Queen of the Netherlands who I'm proposing to move to Wilhelmine of Prussia and have a link to a disambiguation page on it because she is the only Princess Wilhelmine of Prussia who married a King and the current title it way too long. I don't know how to propose a move, do you know how?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Lady Anne and redirects

Hi, Saw your move of Lady Anne Blunt, which I have no problem with, except that it created a couple dozen redirects. Any possibility you could do up some piped links to fix that? Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for letting me know about that. It seems that Xqbot fixed the redirects.[10] Surtsicna (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not that one. The article links: Special:WhatLinksHere/Lady_Anne_Blunt I don't think any bot fixes this stuff. Usually, (grin) it's User:Woohookitty! Montanabw^(talk) 01:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirects are not really a problem. WP:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken: "There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, it is generally an unhelpful exercise, and it can actually be detrimental." The problem is when a redirect redirects to a redirect, which is what Xqbot fixes. Surtsicna (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Seems a lot of other people get pretty worked up about it. Well, if it's not something you are worried about, it definitely isn't something I have the time to fix, so I guess it will languish until someone who likes fixing that sort of thing fixes it. Not a moral issue. Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

maria of hungary

Bonjour, Dans Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary il y a la référence n° 1 “Jansen”. C’est quoi Jansen ? Merci --Chatsam (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, Chatsam! "Jansen" est le nom de Sharon L. Jansen, auteur de "The monstrous regiment of women: female rulers in early modern Europe". J'ai oublié de mettre son nom dans Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary#Bibliography. J'ai corrigé mon erreur. Toutes les informations sur le livre de Jansen est maintenant dans cette section. Que pensez-vous de l'article? Surtsicna (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Merci. L'article est super. je suis en train de rédiger l'article en français et j'ai beaucoup de mal. bye --Chatsam (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hellooo

Hello, hope you have been OK, just thought I'd say sorry for being such a drama queen! We can definitely make a good team ;) Your humble companion Monsieur le Duc (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC) P.S, you should archive your page lol =P Monsieur le Duc (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"You are forgiven, my child" :D I might archive it again one day. Surtsicna (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Jamila M'Barek photograph

The use of this photograph is not exclusive. It has to be used in conjunction with an article or section referring to her court appearance or conviction in Atty's murder. Just write a second rationale summary. Out of curiosity, why do you want to write an article about her? Cindamuse (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jamila M'Barek

I reverted the redlinked edits pertaining to Jamila, as well as dabbed the reference as Lady Shaftesbury. The article is currently undergoing a GA review of which oftentimes, questions regarding the appropriateness of redlinks in GAs arise. Additionally, I have purposely used Jamila's given name to differentiate between current and former wives of the Earl. I couldn't use her surname M'Barek as is standard practice, because then it would be difficult to differentiate between her and her brother, Mohammed. The title of Lady Shaftesbury would however, be appropriate in the image caption with her former husband. And legally, she is not a Countess, as the title was retained, along with the estate home, by the former Christina Montan in their divorce settlement. Cindamuse (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Seting archiving for another user

Why have you added an archive template to your talk page for Frania Wisniewska? Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I simply copied it from the user's talk page. Did I forget to change something? Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I see, I forgot to change the archive parameter to User talk:Surtsicna/Archive1. That's why it did not actively archive anything. Is that the only thing I have to change to make the bot work? Surtsicna (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)