Векочел

Category:Monarchs diagnosed with cancer

Hello, Векочел,

If a category has been tagged for speedy deletion as an empty category (CSD C1), there is really no good reason to take it to CFD for a week-long discussion. It will be deleted more quickly as a CSD C1, while CFD nominations can sometimes last weeks and what are editors going to debate about an empty category? It's unnecessary and I hope you will stop this practice. Only start CFD discussion about categories where a discussion would be fruitful. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Векочел,

Please leave an edit summary with every edit you make. This is especially important with the dozens of page moves you are doing recently where it's not clear why you are moving the articles to different page titles. If you leave a brief explanation, particularly one based in policy, it's less likely that your edit will be reverted because your fellow editors will understand why you made the edit you did. It really takes just a few extra sentences so please take an extra minute and leave an explanatory edit summary. It's good practice on the platform. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Векочел!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry

I was trying to to revert the whole DOB, per WP:DOB, but reverted your cn template instead. Now fixed. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello! Did you really think this was a good idea, removing the linked reference to her place of birth? You could at least have linked it in the info box. I am asking you now to do that. Please be more careful, and please (as requested above) leave edit summaries! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• I will try to be more consisteny with my edit summaries. However, per MOS:BIRTHPLACE, Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates. Векочел (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! It would have beemn nice if you would have linked her place of birth in the info box when you removed it elsewhere. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You changed the link to a location in Norway and in Västergötland. Fixed now. Are you going to be more careful? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 (2)

Please do not change any info-box names so that they do not correspond to (1) article names and (2) names as given in article text. If you want such name changes you need to request article moves (renaming). No other way. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• See WP:NOPIPE. The page on Anund Jacob was presumably moved to remove the country name, and the article on Cnut the Great was also moved. Векочел (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  What is this supposed to mean? Please start using edit summaries. TylerBurden (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  It means illegitimate. His son was born out of wedlock. Векочел (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richeza of Poland, Queen of Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Helen of Hungary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hello, Векочел,

Why are you making massive, undiscussed changes, removing religion from Infoboxes where previous editors had added it in? Is there policy regarding this? I was going to revert all of your changes until I saw you were an experienced editor, not a new account, but it seems like you are making changes on a grand scale without discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• In most cases the religion of these royals is simply not notable. We don't list the religion for Queen Elizabeth II's three younger children or for Charles III's sons, for instance. Векочел (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In cases like Catherine Jagellon, her religion is a vital detail, yet you removed it twice there also. I've now fixed that twice. Please slow down, at least read articles you wish to change, and be more careful! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Haile Selassie

@Векочел Would you mind helping User:CtasACT by going through all the references on the above mentioned article and also ensuring whether they meet Wikipedia's policy or not. The GA review is taking place at-Talk:Haile Selassie/GA2. I would greatly appreciate it if you could help. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• I will look at it shortly. Векочел (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Please stop doing this! Nobility and royalty are not the same thing. I would think you knew that before going about all those faulty changes?! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Royalty is a subset of nobility. Indeed Category:Royalty on Wikipedia is a subset of Category:Nobility. Векочел (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That is not correct. Read the articles, be enlightened and stop doing this! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024 (2)

You are doing a lot of damage with changes like this. Unless you go back and fix those articles, we are heading for serious trouble. It is far more relevant that these people are the children of monarchs than any other less relevant titles. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A prince regnant is a type of monarch. Векочел (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do know that. That's not what I wrote to you about. Read it again and fix your errors! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The page Elizabeth II is already under Category:Daughters of kings. (I did not categorize it.) What is the point of removing a category when it helps to disambiguate? As for the pages which I placed in Swedish nobility, I will have a second look. Векочел (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You are changing categories from helpful ones to much less relevant ones when you make changes like the one I linked to at the top of this talk section. Understand? It is far more relevant that these people are the children of monarchs than any other less relevant titles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization states “Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C.” So it would appear that User:Векочел is correct in moving to the more specific subcategory, since Category:Sons of princes regnant is a subcategory of Category:Sons of monarchs. It’s the same reason why Princess Astrid of Belgium is categorized under Category:Daughters of kings, not Category:Daughters of monarchs. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Mothers of monarchs

For the most part, I think the categories are, at least in theory, supposed to be limited to women who lived to see their children become monarchs. At the very least, that's the philosophy I was using when considering adding them to the category. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

In history, whoever was the mother of a monarch is counted as such whether or not she lived to see the monarch's reign. It's the monarch's relationship to her that's most relevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Children of princesses regnant has been nominated for merging

Category:Children of princesses regnant has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. NLeeuw (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thinker78 CfDs

Your nominations are spurious. Being found disruptive months after creating categories is not a valid reason for deleting them. Please close your nominations immediately. I have commented on the first one, but frankly, a wholesale listing like that is also bordering on the disruptive. ——Serial Number 54129 17:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that Векочел, I respect that. As a compromise, let's leave that one open (I will adjust my comment) and see if it gains traction; I could always be wong... Thanks again. ——Serial Number 54129 17:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sons of princesses regnant

A tag has been placed on Category:Sons of princesses regnant indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Daughters of princesses regnant

A tag has been placed on Category:Daughters of princesses regnant indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Hadrian's marriage

Well caught! That was a truly egregious error... Amazing how long these things can go undetected. Haploidavey (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please do not remove any more images of the Japanese Emperors without establishing a consensus to do so. In many cases there are no contemporary depictions in existance which is akin to Christopher Columbus where a visual is helpful to the reader when it's referenced by historians. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Columbus's portrait, at least, was painted relatively shortly after his death. The pictures of Japanese emperors which I removed were drawn hundreds of years after the subjects lived. Векочел (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• You still need to gain a consensus on the talkpage of the articles involved since your edits are contested. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Your recent editing history at Tony Blair shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)