User talk:FactStraight/Archive 4

Meilleurs vœux !

File:Tour eiffel feu artifice.jpg

Bonne Année 2011 ! --Frania W. (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

LPC

I think LPC may be back. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles is you want to comment, thanks. - dwc lr (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had noticed the LPC pattern and thought he was trying to re-incarnate, but was too busy over the holidays to weigh in. I'll remain vigilant. FactStraight (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply: encouraging sockpuppets

Thank you for your message. The reason why I reverted the reverts made by you, was solely because the edits in question was clear improvements to the articles. I clearly stated this as my reason in my edit. I looked at the changes made by them and saw no reason to why they should be regarded to be vandalism. The change to Template:Abbesses of Remiremont, for example, was absolutely necessary, as the old link led to a different person with the same name, and if I had not made the reversion, I would have to make the very same change myself. It was thereby practical to simply revert to a more benefittal editversion rather than doing it myself. Needless to say, of course, I am not in any way encouraging the use of sockpuppets. I was not aware that User:85.226.44.57 is considered to be a sockpuppet by a blocked user. I was not aware, that edits made by IP:s suspected to be sockpuppets was to be considered vandalism and removed even if they are improvements. If I had been aware of that rule, then I would have made the same changes myself rather than by reverting. I am not informed or aware of User:LouisPhilippeCharles position at wikipedia, but as you can see by the history of this article : Duchess Maria Anna Josepha of Bavaria, I have myself been in disagreement with User:LouisPhilippeCharles regarding their consistent removal of succession-boxes. I understand, of course, that it can be very tiring and frustrating with conflicts such as the one with User:LouisPhilippeCharles, but I would appreciate not being discredited in the eyes of every visitor on by talk-page by being accused of encouraging sockpuppets for having reverted reversions of benefittal changes to an articles, unaware of the rule that such changes are classified as vandalism if they are made by sockpuppets-suspected IP:s, merely because of practical reasons. I understand the frustrating situation, but such accusations is uneccessary under the circumstances. Thank you--Aciram (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry about this problem. I did not say and did not intend to suggest that you deliberately encouraged sockpuppets. I agree that LouisPhilippeCharles's recent edits by sockpuppets have been, generally, useful edits to royalty articles. That is why I explained my reverts before doing them. For instance, I waited until an admin confirmed that 90.193.109.158 and 85.226.44.57 were sockpuppets of a blocked user, then in the edit summary for my revert of the Template: Abbesses of Remiremont, I wrote "rv vandalism by sock of indefinitely blocked User:LouisPhilippeCharles" to warn anyone else who edited of what I was doing and why. What did you think my edit summary meant? I had no way of knowing you were unaware that any edit to an article by a blocked user or sockpuppet is automatically considered vandalism on Wikipedia and is subject to being reverted. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether you restore his edit or immediately substitute your own identical edit -- the effect is the same: the blocked user gets away with "gaming the system", i.e. he gets his work into Wikipedia despite having forfeited, by his improper behavior, the right to edit. This is a deliberate and clever strategy on the part of LouisPhilippeCharles to force Wikipedia to accept his continuing input: Although he is blocked indefinitely for making many, many improper edits, he has figured out that if he carefully makes some "good" edits, someone will protect them and he will have thwarted the admins. Usually what I have seen done in cases like this is that the blocked user's edits are reverted, and then eventually I or others will independently discover the need for corrections and make them. But they will not be as a result of the blocked user bringing attention to them. If you tolerate a blocked user's edits you end up encouraging him -- albeit unintentionally -- to use sockpuppets to edit Wikipedia and defy its rules. I am open to any alternative suggestions you may have to improve Wikipedia without rewarding misbehavior. I apologize if you feel that my comment made you look bad. But I also felt that your revert of my edits suggested they were all improper. So now may I respectfully suggest that we work together to solve this problem? Thanks. 22:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I accept the appology. It was not my intent to sound overly upset, but I did have the impression that I was accused of deliberately encouraging sockpuppets, which naturally did'nt feel good. I am glad that it is not the case, and I understand that you may have taken my revertions badly in a similar manner as I did your message. I assure you that my revertions was not personal but made simply because I could not see that the specific edits was vandalism - I was not aware of the background story. I saw your edit summary, but I am afraid that I simply registered that the reversion was made because the edit had been regarded as vandalism, and as I know that many edits made my IP:users is, sadly, removed even when they are made by good anonomous users, I simply did not consider that there could have been another reason, being unaware as I was of this rule. I understand the problem in the cases when these edits is truly done as a form of strategy, but it seems frustrating to, for example, leave the wrong link on Template: Abbesses of Remiremont for, say, a month and preventing a good use of the template just because a blocked user have used this as a form of strategy. But, hopefully, I trust this is not too common a strategy for blocked users. No hard feelings. Regards--Aciram (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. The only things I know about this user is more or less the fact that he kept removing succession-boxes all the time, which was much disturbing. I leave this in the capable hands of the admins. While discussing such things, perhaps you would be interested to have a look at the Nurbanu Sultan article, or direct the attention of an admin to it? As you can see by the edit history, this article are very often involved in POV-edit wars, and it has been necessary for me to revert several POV edits. I am convinced that the editors responsible are simply uninformed about the POV-NPOV-rules, but it is still very tiring to have to deal with this so often. I am not at all sure what to do about it, and as you can see above, I am not an expert in what to do about such matters, so I thought it would be good to direct the attention of someone with more knowledge about such things to the problem. Perhaps some sort of protection of the page? I don't know. Of course, you don't have to get involved. I hope something can be done about it, as I am getting a little too tired to get involved in it much longer. Please have a look at it if you have the time. Regards--Aciram (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This edit is in the wrong place.

It needs to be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations as there is already a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles linking to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles/Archive, I think that it should be appended under a date (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive another repeat offender), but I am not sure so please ask at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. -- PBS (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Account hacked

I doubt it. I put in another account and all is OK for me. Try logging off and see if the same is still happening using an IP address. If not then close you browser reopen and log back in. If the problem is still there then email me, as there are a couple of other possibilities, but I do not want to discuss them here. (see WP:BEANS). --PBS (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The effect was probably due to the maintenance being carried out. It's been causing weird effects all round the 'pedia. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible linkspam -- your opinion?

Hey, an IP and now a new user has been adding adding a link to www.royalhouseofgeorgia.ge to various article dealing with these people e.g., here and here. You're the go-to person when it comes to royalty in Georgia (in my mind) so I wanted to check with you if this looks like a legitimate link. Whether the user should be going on a spree adding it to all these articles might be another question. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I had noticed the link but just hadn't had time to look at it (or its "linker") closely. There are three problems with it: 1. it is biased in favor of one of the candidates for pretender to the throne of Georgia 2. the website is obviously written by someone whose first language is not English and it contains minimal information, thus it appears amateurish. 3. There is no evidence that it is authoritative in any way, i.e., the website implies but does not explicitly claim to have the imprimatur of any official monarchist or Georgian entity, nor of the Georgian Orthodox Church, nor of any member of the Bagration dynasty. I see nothing improperly POV about it being linked to articles on members of the Moukhrani branch of the House of Bagration, since it focuses exclusively on their side of the family and upholds their claim to the throne. But it contradicts the POV of those who support the Gruzinsky branch's claim to the throne. And it should not be linked to neutral Bagration or Georgian articles unless there's also a link to a site that supports the opposing claims of the Gruzinsky branch (both sides have adherents who intermittently spam Georgian articles on Wikipedia). Bottom line: it adds little but a photo of the Mukhrani heir and Gruzinsky heiress together (they may or may not still be married: I have yet to see reliable sources in English on that point), which is the best I've seen but I wonder if it meets WP criteria for upload? Worse, it's biased and we have no reason to believe it's authorized by any stakeholder whose position on the Bagrations is notable enough to justify the link. So it should go. FactStraight (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

Your apology is accepted. As you can see I have been unblocked now. Though I was initially at a loss of why I was being suspected of being a sockpuppet, I now understand the situation better and why people are weary of that user.

Sincerely and without hard feelings,

Peaceingalaxy —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

Russian Constitution of 1906

Thanks so much for your recent assistance with the Russian Constitution of 1906 article. I hadn't noticed how much my wording tended toward a negative (toward Nicholas) slant, but once I saw your corrections, it became readily apparent. Your aid has taken this article to a higher level, and I thank you for it. I'll see what I can do over the course of this week to find sources in the areas you indicated, and I have already removed one unsourced comment (toward the end of the "Provisions" section). As I think we'd both agree, this is definitely a work in progress (and I'm trying to work on two or three other projects, at the same time!)! Thanks again for your input. Cheers!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for working so hard and consistently to improve the article, and for your gracious response to my edits aimed at assuring that the article is as balanced as possible. FactStraight (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Thanks again for your efforts and improvements, as well. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles ban

I had a look at some of the edits by User:85.226.41.143 of the edit made which do you think indicates that it is LPC?

I would support moves to ban LPC, but I will not initiate it as I have enough to do already. I have never seen an editor who is simultaneously blocked from all languages before and personally I can not see how it would be coordinated to unblock him on all sites. His continuing proxy editing since his block has in my mind makes him an irreconcilable. If you decide to proceed with a request via ANI or whatever let me know and I'll put in my tuppence worth. -- PBS (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Consort list articles

I hope this doesn't count as Wikipedia:Canvassing, but your comment at Talk:List of consorts of Montpensier made me think you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of consorts of X. Opera hat (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Unfortunately, I think that directly contacting a Wiki editor who has previously expressed an opinion on this matter does constitute canvassing. However, since I had the Montpensier and all the other "consort" articles on my Watchlist anyway I independently saw the notices you placed on each of their talk pages, and would have weighed in anyway. FactStraight (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

LPC Sock?

Hi FactStraight, you are usually good at spotting sock puppets of LouisPhilippeCharles what do you think of User:Little Cambridge? I know in the past LPC and his socks made a lot of templates and categories the type of which Little Cambridge has made. I'm not sure if creating categories and templates is the sort of thing a new user would do straight away. - dwc lr (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm suspicious of any account created post-LPC's block if it edits the same articles he used to in the same way. He's trying to stay "below the radar" by editing non-royalty articles as well, but if you look at those edits they are usually more minor than his royalty edits -- or are just "blank" edits. In this case, I had noticed Little Cambridge but don't usually pay attention to templates or categories. I will now watch his/her edits more closely -- and thanks for bringing this to my attention. FactStraight (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy titles

You reverted my edit on Count Ingolf of Rosenborg where I had removed the reference to courtesy titles. I am curious why? I believe the notion of a "courtesy title" as referenced is completely irrelevant and different from the examples cited: Compte Henri was born a compte/count (by French/Continental practise, since his father was a count) and passes this title on to his sons (A courtesy title cannot be passed on); Princess Anne had a title by marriage, not courtesy: if she had remained married to Viscount Anson when he succeeded, she would have become The Countess Lichfield, which is not a courtesy title but a substantive title of the(wife of a member of the) British peerage. Also, the article cites Dr as an example of a courtesy title, which presumably would not have been relevant for an approved Royal Danish marriage?

I suggest we at least remove the hyperlink (since it is misleading) and better still, remove the phrase courtesy title. In the context, the point is that approved marriages were only to people who held aristocratic titles (without being specific about how or why those titles come about).

Hfossa (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither Henri de Laborde de Monpezat nor Anne Bowes-Lyon held "real" titles when they married (into the Danish royal family, yet both used and were widely addressed by noble titles. Henri's title was self-assumed by an ancestor, the family's elevation to France's nobility having been twice blocked by the Estates where his family owned land in the 18th century. Anne had belonged, both by birth and marriage, to noble families but was never herself noble. She shared her previous husband's title, but that was a "courtesy title" even by British standards, and it is irrelevant what lawful peerage her husband was due to inherit since a. he did not do so during Anne's marriage to him, and b. at the time of her marriage into the Danish royal family she was never going to become a peeress-by-marriage because she was divorced. So both of these commoners (who looked as if they were noble because of the titles they bore by courtesy) were accepted as marital partners into the Danish royal family at a time when the dynasty still did not authorize marriages to untitled persons (or the marriages of Ingolf and his brother would have been dynastic). It would be misleading for the article to suggest that their noble titles were valid under current or historical law, so I thought it more accurate to describe their situation as "known by the kind of courtesy titles typical of Europe's hereditary nobility." I do, however, agree with you that Wiki's Courtesy title article does not reflect the circumstances well because it focuses on British courtesy titles (French tradition allows for use of titres de courtoisie as much as does British, but only for members of genuinely noble families, which the Laborde de Monpezats were not). The problem, IMO, is that the "Courtesy title" article needs to be expanded and corrected ("Dr." is a professional prefix, not a courtesy title). Until it is, however, I agree with you that the link should be deleted. Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. FactStraight (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, while I thank you for linking to this discussion in your edit summary, this conversation should be copied to Talk:Count Ingolf of Rosenborg (and should probably have taken place there in the first place) so that other interested editors might participate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mariano Hugo

Hi, regarding your recent edits to the Mariano Hugo article, are you aware that you should provide translations for foreign language sources and that genealogy websites are not usually considered to be reliable sources? - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and per WP:MOSHEAD your recent change to the section heading for Appointments and activities is contrary to the guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tudor dynasty#Move?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tudor dynasty#Move?. OCNative (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Excuse me, but what is this suppose to be?

You have recently reverted one of my edits. I changed the image in an article. Your reason was "(rv sock of indefinitely blocked User:LouisPhilippeCharles)". This is a link : [[1]]. Am I accused of being a sock-puppet of LouisPhilippeCharles? I have been a member of wikipedia since 2006, while LouisPhilippeCharles became a member in 2009. This is a serious accusation from your part, and I would like an explanation. What is the ground for such an accusation? Am I to understand, that all users and IP:s, who have the same intererests as LouisPhilippeCharles, should be pointed out as his puppets? That would in fact mean that no one would be allowed to edit articles of royalty and nobility in history withouth being accused of being LouisPhilippeCharles and have their edits removed, which would be a serious threat to wikipedia's development. This is particularly insulting, as I myself have been in disagreement with LouisPhilippeCharles, and are still forced to revert changes he makes with his various IP:s. I would like an explanation. --Aciram (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You have also reverted some of my edits after or before LouisPhilippeCharles edited on the page. Learn to revert correctly please; it's all recorded in the articles' revision history.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not about reverting another users edit. This is about accusing someone of being a sockpuppet, which was the reason he gave to revert my edit. To revert an edit is not nearly as serious as accusing someone for being a sockpuppet, which is the case here. That is also recorded in the articles' revision history. I have never reverted your edits by claiming that you are a sockpuppet. Learn the difference, please. This is a serious accusation. --Aciram (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

FactStraight, I have now looked more closely to your edit. It seems, as though you are making a large number of revertions of edits on articles of royalty with the reason: "(rv sock of indefinitely blocked User:LouisPhilippeCharles)". This accusation may thereby not have been directed toward me in particular. It is possible, that you belived you were reverting someone else, or that you were reverting my edits simply because you suspected some one of the edits before mine where made by LouisPhilippeCharles. If that is so, you may ignore my misunderstanding above. Nevertheless, it does seem to be somewhat of an exhageration to assume that nearly every IP or user with the same interests as LouisPhilippeCharles is in fact him/her. It can do nothing more than damage the work on the articles of royalty and nobility in history, for which I also hapen to have an interest.--Aciram (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize to you and Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy for accidentally reverting edits to articles of yours. In all of these cases, you will find that I was reverting edits made to royalty/nobility articles by a repeat vandal with whom you are both very familiar -- he is so notorious that he has been banned globally, that is, from all versions of Wikipedia because he has a lengthy track record of vandalizing hundreds of royalty articles on different Wikipedias (he first came online in '06, not '09, but under different names); many, if not most, of his vandalizing edits remain unreverted because doing so would be almost a fulltime job (for example, he re-named all of the Dukes of Montbazon as Princes of Guéménée, even though the dukedom was the House of Rohan's main modern title historically -- but the princedom is simply the title LouisPhilippeCharles prefers. Another instance is the many cases where he changed titles of members of the House of Merode to Mérode, even though properly there is no accent in Merode). In every case, I have reverted his edits after first reporting them to SPI and requesting that they block his latest sockpuppet and revert the edits he made using that sockpuppet. Although they do block his sockpuppets, sometimes they revert his edits and sometimes they don't. But my experience with this vandal is that he continues to edit despite being banned because he knows that some of those edits are overlooked and others are defended by people who don't understand that a blocked user's edits are vandalism and should be deleted automatically -- even if the edit is otherwise a good edit. The sooner the vandal realizes that his edits will not be tolerated, and will always be deleted from Wikipedia, the more likely he is to realize that he is wasting his time by trying to edit Wikipedia while blocked (he has been repeatedly urged to seek lifting of the block -- but a pre-condition for un-blocking is that he refrain from editing with sockpuppets for 6 months, which he refuses to do). So when the admin fails to revert the sockpuppet vandalism, I try to clean out the vandalizing edits. Very often when I go in to correct the article I discover that he has made previous edits to that article under other sockpuppets, so I also revert those. Because some of those edits were made weeks or months ago, other edits have been made to the article since then, including some by the two of you. I try to clean up the articles while leaving those edits for the most part, but because there are so many reverts, I sometimes make mistakes. I will try to be more careful, but I also ask that you try not to add edits after his -- which are usually obvious because the kind of changes he makes to royalty articles fit an identifiable pattern. Instead, please report the sockpuppetry by adding the suspected IP here, so that the vandalism can be stopped quickly and mistakes are avoided. Thank you for your understanding. FactStraight (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I do have a tip for you concerning this matter. You ask for help in identifying the edits of a certain blocked editor. I advice you to put the article Duchess Maria Anna Josepha of Bavaria on you watch list. The blocked editor in question often returns to this article; he/she removes predecessor and successor from the box, because she/he dislikes the succession of consorts, and this article seems to have been chosen to for the purpose of enforcing this view. Look at the articles edit history, and you will see this. I hope this tip can be of some help. I do believe it will. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

SVG Version of Spanish Royal Consorts with ornaments

Hello I've uploaded the arms of the royal consorts with ornaments. I've use references Can you tell me the reason you to consider to remove these coats from the articles? Thanks you Sorry for my English I'm learning it. --Heralder (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That deletion was accidental. My apologies. FactStraight (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

OOps....

Sorry, I didn't intentionally revert you at Talk:Albert II, Prince of Monaco, I accidentally hit the wrong button while contemplating adding something about the dire state of condom quality in Monaco.... - Nunh-huh 02:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hee hee! No problem. I'm sure some outraged soul will be trying to delete us both -- heedless of the fact that there's a much more "stigmatizing" word that could legally be applied than "illegitimate"... FactStraight (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, throughout history there have been royal b....abies. In this case, I suppose serene b....abies..... - Nunh-huh 02:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

image?

Bonsoir.

Je voudrais savoir, s'il vous plaît, pourquoi vous avez supprimé mes modifications des illustrations concernant Louise Marguerite de Lorraine, Princesse de Conti ? Ma photo est pourtant de bien meilleure résolution, taille et netteté, et est d'ailleurs en passe d'obtenir le label d' " image de qualité" sur "Commons". Merci.--Jebulo (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

David Bagration of Mukhrani

Why did you revert my edits and why do you think I'm a sockpuppet? --Kimon^talk 00:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edits unintentionally. I wanted to swiftly revert the edits of User:12.28.236.6 who is a sockpuppet of TFoxworth, a vandal who has been banned for years from Wikipedia, but who periodically returns to vandalize certain articles (particularly those having to do with the House of Romanov and the Bagrationi dynasty). The quicker he is reverted the sooner he realizes that his return is futile because his edits will not be allowed to endure. Unfortunately, you had edited the article after him, so that in order to revert him quickly I unintentionally reverted your edits as well. I apologize. FactStraight (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem - I'll edit the article and re-introduce my changes. --Kimon^talk 14:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what was the vandalism you identified so, could you please take a look at this edit and tell me what's wrong? Alternatively, you can restore that version and make the requisite edits yourself. --Kimon^talk 21:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted this edit by a sock of Tfoxworth. I didn't even look at the content of his edit: a banned user is not allowed to edit Wikipedia, regardless of what changes he makes. Since your edits were added after his, I accidentally deleted them. FactStraight (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Another sock?

Whenever I see an IP reverting a lot of your edits and only doing that, I pretty much assume it's a sock of TFoxworth. In this case it's 71.35.17.152. I reverted all their edits but since you're the expert on TFoxworth I though I'd let you know what was going on. SQGibbon (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It quacked most convincingly and has been blocked accordingly. Favonian (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You're both right -- and thanks! FactStraight (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

User moving French royal articles

For instance: Talk:Henri_d'Orléans,_count_of_Paris#Move_to_.22Henri_d.27Orl.C3.A9ans.2C_count_of_Paris.22. Is there any issue with this? Seven Letters 14:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. SudoGhost 22:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Youre vandalising our article on Sicilian Nobility

Caro Signore, My colleague Sven (Italian-royalty) who originally penned the article on Sicilian Nobility and i have spent 14 months investigating contemporary aristocracy in Sicily. I would appreciate it that at this point, as i have allowed several of your edits, that you would leave our article alone in its present state. It was approved by two separate administrators and i have no desire of getting into an "edit war" with you. I see you are engaged in several and have been blocked from editing by wikipedia on multiple occasions for a habit of heavy handed editing. The adjustments you made re Infante Carlos are acceptable and we will allow them to remain however i would appreciate it if you would cease from deleting the names of the existing families we have interviewed. As a uomo Siciliano who has travelled the world as an ambassador to our great land, someone that UNDERSTANDS our way of life and history, i find it utterly appalling that you feel the need to revise our history. You have deleted parts that you may not see as important however for those of us in southern Italy that monitor and write about the lives and habits of contemporary aristocracy your actions amount to vandalism. Of the 32 Baroni that I interviewed only 3 wanted their names in print. Three! Because of the stigma attached to sicilian aristocracy. The rest cling tightly to their anonymity and i have had to respect that in my writing, however for us to progress as a people we need the names of our great families to live on. Our island has been stripped of its tradition since the second world war. Academics at the University of Catania are trying to restore the respect our island warrants but its hard when so many of our aristocracy live in secrecy. For us to be able to name and identify the few brave souls who have allowed us to speak and write of their lives is of paramount importance to our struggle. For you then to censor this is criminal and yes it is my humble opinion, it also reeks of racism. Contemporary aristocracy is of the utmost importance to our island and sense of self and by omitting the names of the few living Barons we have left you are censoring us as a people. Information regarding existing barons needs to be collected and presented especially in the information age. Why do you feel the need to omit Baron Serramarrocco quando il suo nome e is an important part of our history and contemporary life! To delete all traces of what remains of our fragmented aristocracy, as you have done so insensitively, reeks of censorship and a bias against southern italians. It is a blatant attack on our culture and deliberate revision of our history. Youve also added some information to the text without citing your source material. You say "most" when in fact the vast majority of l'aristocrazia siciliana have in fact left. I have spoken with almost 3 dozen families in the last year and a half and the vast majority have in fact left Sicily for greener pastures. Yet you say "most" have remained. Can you please give me the names and phone numbers of even 5 families where the heir has remained in Sicily.I see that you are an american. Do yo speak Italian? Have you been to il circhio bellini? Have you seen any of the primary source material in catania & Siracusa?Have you even been to Sicily?.....I have no issues leaving some of the information you added re Infante Carlos but to erase information drawn from months of painstaking research that my colleague, students and i have spent so much time working for the sake of editing others articles is criminal. I am sorry if i am acting in a hostile manner however this is my passion and to see our work destroyed and my culture trampled on by a narrow vision of what our article should look like and blatant cultural imperialism pains me. If you do not cease from damaging our article i will file a formal complaint with wikipedia. I will demonstrate how your revisions only serve as disruptions. This is evidenced by your being blocked from editing so many articles and the fact that youre in "editing wars", something i read about for the first time this afternoon, with so many good people on this site. At this point lasciaci stare or I will file a formal complaint. p.s. I dont want to be confrontational so I adjusted the article in a manner i thought youd deem more suitable, only mentioning specific Baroni when relevant.I think it works well now and would appreciate it if you would leave our article alone. As i said we do not use wikipedia and have no intention of ever writing another article for wiki thanks to your heavy handed meddling. So i suppose you accomplished one thing; another Italian scholar will refrain from contributing to wiki due to heavy handed culturally imperialistic meddling-something i will be going into in great detail if i need to make a formal complaint. Salve!

Fabrizio Parisi Professore di Storia e Filosofia Catania — Preceding unsigned comment added by FabrizioParisi (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

LPC/Marie Antoinette

Thanks for the heads up. I was rather suspicious about it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:George VI

In case you didn't notice, I replied to your comment and suggested that you move/repeat it under the new move request that I started.--Kotniski (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

marie jeanne

what is the issue having her own monogram on her page? why remove dates of birth/death of several people!? This is an encyclopedia and you are making yourself look like an idiot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.109.33 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Prince du sang

Hi FactStraight, I was wondering why you rv it as an inappropriate link. Lotje ツ (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Because "Mariage" is much too broad an article to link prince du sang to. Virtually no one who is interested in reading about "marriage" is likely to have an interest in the marriages of the long-extinct, very small group of marriages contracted by princes du sang. Therefore, it is inappropriate to link to that topic. FactStraight (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I figured it out when I looked at your latest edits. Thanks for your kind help Lotje ツ (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Dukes of Loulé

Hi FactStraight. I've asked Lumastan (talk · contribs) to discuss his edits and in particular his infobox for Dukes of Loulé which you reverted as misleading. He did start the discussion on Talk:Dukes of Loulé but since I'm not sure you have the page watchlisted, I thought I'd let you know. Best, Pichpich (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

If you haven't noticed, you've been making some personal attacks against me, which can be deleted under WP:NPA. For the sake of etiquette, do you object if I delete them? I shall retain your points, carefully removing only those phrases which constitute an attack against my character. If you have problems with my behavior, please write them on my talk page, not on article talk pages. Emerson 07 (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

marie-louise-elisabeth d'orléans duchess of Berry

By reverting you are doing nothing to improve the piece. The biography of the duchess of Berry has its dark sides. Her hidden pregnancies are well known, even Saint-Simon mentions she had numerous affairs and was found to be pregnant at her autopsy, just 3 months after her scandalous confinement at the Luxembourg. The accusations of incest should also be mentioned and open to debate. In historical terms the portrait of the Duchess in the satirical songs is also significant. Like during the French revolution sex and politics were intertwined and should at least be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerecinski (talk • contribs) 11:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Reverting - History is not hagiography You are really a nuisance. Your reverting is just plain irrational censorship. It is most annoying when you are dealing with a history that you clearly do not know well nor care to investigate about. History also includes rumors, especially when dealing with XVIIIthe century France ! Biography should not be confused with hagiography. Just reverting brings no satisfaction to anyone. Votre attitude est indigne d'un historien ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerecinski (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

aerecinski not LouisPhilippeCharles

Dear Sir, I am new to en.wiki yes indeed but I have nothing to do with LouisPhilippeCharles or any of your wiki archenemies and am not at all a royal family or royal genealogy buff. I'm interested in cultural history and fascinated with XVIIIth century France, especially the Regency. The Duchess of Berry is a very odd and fascinating character. The paragraphs I edited for wiki ARE referenced... as you know very well. I quote my sources and they are well known. The present page on the Duchess of Berry is largely incomplete and misleading since it makes no mention at all or hardly of her very bad reputation and just turns her biography into a generic royal family (somewhat tragical) life story. If you feel the paragraphs should be referenced differently you could have marked them as needing footnotes or whatever... Simply reverting and persisting on doing so brings nothing at all to the page. AerecinskiAerecinski (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If I inadvertently identified you as indefinitely blocked but recurrent LouisPhilippeCharles, I apologize and appreciate your advising me of the error. Two problems remain. First, on Wikipedia, you are expected to give precise citations for allegations when they are legitimately requested. You state that "The paragraphs I edited for wiki ARE referenced... as you know very well. I quote my sources and they are well known." When I reverted your edits after you restored them, I referred to the talk page for explanation of what was needed, stating "Please do not continue to edit these rumors into the article unless they are properly sourced with inline citations." Inline citations are footnotes to a specific page in a reliable source that others can go to and verify the accuracy of what you've posted. This has not been done, and another editor has again reverted your edits for that reason. Please see Inline Citation. Secondly, much of the language used in your edits is unencyclopedic and won't remain even if properly cited. We don't say, e.g., "Always very respectful to the House of France, Dangeau pretended not to know the real nature of that illness. For the sick princess was really suffering the pains of labour. The merry young widow had been hiding her pregnancy until she reached her term." Here, you have given your opinion of Dangeau's habits, and you have used that as a basis to draw a conclusion about what he knew and pretended not to know. The phrase "...merry young widow" is simply unencyclopedic unless it is a direct quote from a reliable source, properly footnoted. And even such a quote could be subject to removal if challenged on the grounds that it draws excessive attention to an aspect of the subject. I regret that this exchange has not hitherto been more collegial and, in the light of this clarification, I look forward to mutual efforts to improve this and other articles. FactStraight (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

John I, Duke of Saxony (1249 – 1285)

FactStraight, on 18 November I edited this page so that the children of John were listed in chronological order, then you subsequently undid it. This seemed like a perfectly reasonable change to make, so please explain to me your objection! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skidmore (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspected that the edit was made by an anonymous sockpuppet of someone who was editing Wikipedia using more than one account. FactStraight (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

user:Aerecinski

Judging from user:Aerecinski's lack of sources and statements like this, "unavowed Censorship : read the paragraphs you fully deleted and you'll find the French sources !!, it would probably be prudent to report him/her to the edit-warring board. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I will support such a step if he reverts again. The board probably won't act on "old" edits, when there have been two intervening edits expanding on his insertion of POV gossip. BTW, contrary to what he believes, I don't object to the "scandalousness" of her life, but to his failure to give us page cites where we can verify them, and to his gossipy rather than encyclopedic style for description. FactStraight (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree about the citations. You wouldn't happen to know anything about John "the Fearless", Duke of Burgundy and his descendants, would you? A recent edit to Antipope Felix V and the corresponding "reference" is somewhat questionable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Afraid I'm not much use once you go back before the 16th century. But this filiation is so unlikely as to be completely lacking in credibility. First, its cited as the acnestry of a current American amateur genealogist, and is actually linked to his RootsWeb page -- almost always a sign of over-eager ancestral ambition. Secondly, the claim is that his ancestor, Wilhelm van der Haegan (c.1435-1510) was a wealthy Flemish entrepreneur who not only traded internationally -- but immigrated with wife and family to the Azores, where he island-hopped until his death. So far, plausible if historically insignificant. But it's claimed that this Haegan was the bastard son of John of Burgundy, Bishop of Cambrai, himself a bastard son of John II the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy (1371-1419). It is extremely unlikely that this royal background, even if double-sinistered, yielded a "wealthy entrepreneur" willing to move his family from a region where their prestige and resources were maximized, to a barely populated archipelago prior to Columbus's discovery of America. But that is not completely impossible. What is impossible, is that this double-bastard trader could have, at the age of 19, taken as wife Margarita of Savoy, aged 16, daughter of the future Anti-pope and reigning Duke of Savoy by Princess Marie of Burgundy -- and that he persuaded she and her family to allow him to move her and their children to settle a Portuguese colony! Royal male bastards may become adventurers or traders on the edge of the known world; royal Euro-princesses in the 1400s -- never. FactStraight (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have missed the part that stated Willem's father was John, bishop of Cambrai. That and the fact this information is not found anywhere else would disqualify the source from any type of genealogical reliability. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)