User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Surtsicna. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Surtsicna.

AfC submissions
Random submission

~6 weeks

979 pending submissions

Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hugh III of Cyprus

Hi Surtsicna. You have sources about this article. 190.42.220.141 (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Note: The discussion of this was concluded with a indef block on the nom. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Kotromanić dynasty

What do you make of this post? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP is from Sarajevo and advocates changing the coat of arms. I think I hear quacking! Surtsicna (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Huh???

Excuse me? You’re being obsessive. First of all the pic of Sisi that I kept using was the one I saw of her when first visiting her page so it’s been there for a long time, apparently. So why change it? It’s not the end of the world to have a painting as a bio pic, look at Amélie of Orléans. Second, I wasn’t the only one editing. Unless you sent the user who kept uploading that low quality pic the same message, you need to stop attacking me. Winter Feodorovna (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You are the only one not using the talk page at all. Several users have already discussed the use of that painting and agreed that it is not the best option. Please use the talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Glencoe Massacre re William

You're right in the sense he was William II of Scotland but he is normally referred to as William III regardless; you can drive yourself crazy trying to figure out when he was acting as William of Orange, William III or William II - so I've just put William which I think is a reasonable compromise.

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the article is about the history of Scotland, I thought "William II" would be the obvious choice. England and Orange, of which he was "the Third", are not mentioned in the article at all. Surtsicna (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can you explain your link to NOPIPE. I'm not disputing it, I'm happy to learn but I just don't understand the point. The footnotes seem to have disappeared, so I'm not sure whether that has something to do with it and if so, I'm now confused as to when they can be used. Thanks for your help.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is what I changed, and it does not seem to have affected the footnotes at all. Which footnotes disappeared? Perhaps I can help with that. As for WP:NOPIPE, the point is to make links as simple as possible, for example using [[Nine Years' War]] instead of [[Nine_Years_War|Nine Years' War]]. Also, commas and fullstops should not be part of the link. Surtsicna (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The footnotes have reappeared, so not sure what happened there; I'll blame my Mac, usually covers it :). Point noted on links, thanks for your help, I appreciate the input.

While I've got your attention, is there a convention on dates? Not format ie mm/dd/yy etc but I've always used 23rd versus 23 and I couldn't find a preference listed in the style document. Thanks.

Robinvp11 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. The Manual of Style advises us to use 23 rather than 23rd. Please don't hesitate to ask anything, since you're doing such a great job at Massacre of Glencoe! Surtsicna (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Family tree references

For Mary, Queen of Scots, I really was hoping to find a reference to a family tree like [1] (scroll down a few pages). This one is incomplete as it's missing the ancestors of Mary of Guise. So if you know of a good reference for her family, we could list them together as sources for the tree. That would be really helpful to the readers I think. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 01:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot access the book. The tree in the article is conceived as including all (and only) people mentioned in the article text and illustrating relations with those people. The parents of Antoinette de Bourbon do not seem relevant; those of Margaret Tudor obviously are. The people who are mentioned in the text are also already sourced, while the "trivial" Guise ancestors would require additional sources.
Anyway, you are doing a great work tagging ancestry sections. They have somehow over the yeas earned a completely undeserved exemption from the basic verifiability rules. It's time to end that. Surtsicna (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Diana

The current image of Diana is not a suitable image. CookieMonster755 ✉ 23:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

She is tilting her head, and the lighting is terrible. There are much better images of her, so I think it needs to be changed asap. CookieMonster755 ✉ 23:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There is always room for improvement. If you can replace the image with a better one, please do. Do not, however, replace it with a cartoon. Surtsicna (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a cartoon :O isn't it a painting? Anyway, maybe we should have a discussion and select some possible replacement images on the talk page? CookieMonster755 ✉ 16:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of great images. CookieMonster755 ✉ 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

By all means, use the talk page to suggest whatever you consider a better option. You can also search FlickR for suitably licensed images and various online archives. Images in US presidential libraries are a good place to look, for example. Surtsicna (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas of Bosnia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas of Bosnia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maria of Serbia, Queen of Bosnia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maria of Serbia, Queen of Bosnia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Aleksa Šantić. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Surtsicna (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have started a discussion on the talk page,[2] implored the other user to take part in it,[3][4][5][6], kindly requested that he/she respond to my comments on his/her talk page or the article talk page,[7], only to be told blankly that he or she had no intention to discuss anything.[8] I made a bunch of unrelated edits to the article, citing various guidelines, fixing grammar, orthography and style, all of which was promptly reverted by the anonymous user, who did not bother to respond to any of my comments on any talk page. I warned the user not to revert a whole set of edits, not to reintroduce poor grammar and poor orthography,[9] but he/she made it perfectly clear that he/she did not care, much like he/she had no intention to discuss anything. Does that really not constitute extremely disruptive editing, lest I say vandalism?. When Marbe166 inquired as to why I was blocked too, he was told that it was because I had made "10 identical reverts at Aleksa Šantić in the time span of ~40 minutes". Should my edits really be equated to that of the other party? The decision to block me (for the same amount of time no less!), as well as to leave the article at the controversial/disputed version, one which is both contrary to MOS:BIO and to the consensus previously reached on the talk page, strikes me as bizarre to say the least. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You raise a number of points, but they are all different aspects of the fact that you believe that it was all right for you to keep on reverting because you were right. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. (Incidentally, saying that you reverted 1o times understates the case: I found over 20 edits of yours which repeated some of the same changes, many of them identical.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'd recommend that this block be repealed, on account that the other party is an IP who just appeared today, after a long absence from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, my point is not that I was right regarding the content, but that the other party blankly refused to discuss anything. How do you suggest I act once the block expires, bearing in mind that the IP refuses to respond to my messages on the article talk page or his/her user talk page? I am honestly dumbfounded. It seems to me that I should be calculative rather than rely on the judgement of others, but I would appreciate your advice. Surtsicna (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Since you are a regular content contributor, it is likely that you will be taken seriously if any future problems arise. The problem was that you went past 3RR yourself when doing reverts that were not excused by WP:3RRNO. It looks bad if each party reverts 20 times unless the other party is obviously a sock or a vandal. If you are willing to begin proper WP:DR and the other party won't participate, you can bring that to to admins for action. One option you could use is WP:DRN. If you think there is any ethnic POV-pushing going on, it may be possible to use WP:ARBMAC sanctions but that's not obvious yet. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

A WP:DR would be an overkill, in my opinion. Is that really the venue we take whenever a disruptive user blankly refuses to join a simple talk page discussion or to respond to messages on his/her talk page? It strikes me as pampering those who, to say the very least, do not deserve pampering. Surtsicna (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

And here we go again, EdJohnston. This time from a different IP address. I suppose the pest cannot even be blocked. Surtsicna (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Aleksa Šantić for two months, due to edit warring from a fluctuating IP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your help! Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maria of Serbia, Queen of Bosnia

The article Maria of Serbia, Queen of Bosnia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maria of Serbia, Queen of Bosnia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas of Bosnia

The article Thomas of Bosnia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas of Bosnia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

DRN notice

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Smashed easter egg

I've given you a shout-out in this edit for reminding me about readers using print versions and WP:EASTER. Thanks.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hello. Help increase the quality of the article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you very much.171.227.143.171 (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I throw up my hands....

It's like they are a plague... you strike one down and it returns... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

People here just won't stop to wonder whether something is useful; all they care about is whether it's common. Surtsicna (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) thoroughly before any more ship-related page moves. Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Tedesci (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Tedesci, you are a new sockpuppet of Swetoniusz. You will be blocked from our community indefinitly. Borsoka (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems you and user:Surtsicna are the true sockpuppets. Tedesci (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Raziwill

The Radziwill family's princely rank was conferred by the Holy Roman Empire, making them Reichsfürsts (Princes of the Empire) for which the royal template is used, not a noble template. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Willthacheerleader18. Where does it say that Template:Infobox royalty should be used for Princes of the Empire? Princes of the Empire were not royal by default. The Radziwill family was definitely not royal. If you disagree, please tell me which state they ruled and when. Surtsicna (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you are right. They were not sovereign princes of the empire, but of the lower princely rank. I have changed the template to that of a noble instead of that of a royal. Thank you. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Rade Šerbedžija

Concerning your edit, using the term "Croatian" implies that he is of Croatian ethnicity which is erroneous especially since ethnicity usually trumps nationality in that part of the world as a definition of one's identity. I can instead propose the following sentence if you are interested :

Rade Šerbedžija (Serbian Cyrillic: Раде Шербеџија, Serbo-Croatian pronunciation: [rǎːde ʃerbědʒija]; born 27 July 1946), occasionally credited as Rade Sherbedgia in some English language productions, is a Serbian actor, director and musician from Croatia. Kind regards, Abonzz (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No, he is not Serbian. At no point in his life did he live in Serbia. He is an ethnic Serb, however, and that is already mentioned in the article. And not that it matters anyway, but Šerbedžija has never emphasized his ethnicity nor considered it an important part of his identity. Please see MOS:BIO for further details. Surtsicna (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Since he is an ethnic Serb, stating that he is "from Croatia" as opposed to "Croatian" makes it less confusing when it comes to his ethnicity. FYI, he definitely has emphasized his ethnicity by stating that he is "I am Serb 100%" in the following article: http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/scena.147.html:641109-Rade-Serbedzija-Ja-sam-Srbin-stopostotni

This Wikipedia is written for a worldwide audience, and worldwide audience sees no distinction between "Croatian" and "from Croatia". That's because there really isn't any. Šerbedžija's ethnicity is mentioned where appropriate. Surtsicna (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a distinction which is the point of my argument. The lead is therefore confusing to a world wide audience. The subject of the article even made a point of stating his ethnicity which is contradicted by the confusing lead.

There is a WORLD of difference between someone's ethnicity and someone's citizenship. Please don't speak for the "world community" - you are one person.50.111.41.216 (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

FMG

What makes you think that the site http://fmg.ac is not reliable? The trustees appear to be mostly academics, and the book Medieval Lands says that although user submissions are welcome, "all contributions should be supported by sound and reliable documentary sources". Do you have reason to believe otherwise? —howcheng {chat} 04:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

All contributions to Wikipedia should also be supported by sound and reliable documentary sources too, shouldn't they? Yet Wikipedia is also not acceptable as a source for Wikipedia. What makes Medieval Lands unsuitable is that it is self-published. I believe the reliability of Medieval Lands in particular was discussed somewhere, which led to the references to it being tagged by bots as unreliable. Surtsicna (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Some relevant discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 131#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley (2), Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 135#The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. Personally, I'd source the information to the sources that Cawley cites, myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Alas, that means I'll have to slap a {{refimprove}} tag on Maria Theresa#Ancestry, as most of that tree isn't cited. —howcheng {chat} 15:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Better yet, Howcheng, let's remove unsourced content from Good Articles. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I will leave the decision on whether to add the appropriate references to the section or to remove it entirely up to you and/or the regular editors of that article. —howcheng {chat} 18:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. –Davey2010^Talk 16:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

As per BRD you are required to go to the talkpage - BLP doesn't really work here because the name is used on tons of other articles so as such removing it fro this one article is pointless, As I said go to the talkpage and start an RFC it's not that hard. –Davey2010^Talk 16:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Surtsicna reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: ). Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 16:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

British royal family

I am confused over your reversion to my edit of Template:British royal family. According to the article Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry had been promised the title upon marriage. Векочел (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi! That's just a speculation. It is not set in stone that he will even receive a title. Besides, we do not gain anything by inserting hidden comments about possible future titles. Let's just be patient and see what happens. Surtsicna (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we will have to be patient for now. Thanks. Векочел (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You currently have a weakness for dismissing as "unsourced" widely known information about the ancestry of the newly born Prince.Not helpful in the least.12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

My weakness is grounded in the WP:BLP policy. It is absolutely not widely known that the mother of the subject's mother's father was a certain Valerie Glassborow. Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The weaknesses of Wikipedia policies aside,put "Valerie Glassborow" into Google and you get pages and pages of hits all about this particular Valerie Glassborow in the context of that particular relationship.12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

By that logic, nothing should need referencing since readers can make the effort to verify any claim. But that's not how Wikipedia works and we have to make do with that "weakness".ˇSurtsicna (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

By logic,whether or not source citations are either helpful or necessary needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.Sticking to particular rules gets in the way of the very goals the rules are alleged to promote.12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Your selective wielding of impractical policies is entirely a problem and in no way a solution. You are doing some good getting rid of vandalism but there is simply no excuse for your constant deletion of the ancestry template. Let this be an arbitration matter applied to multiple articles if you like but your revert wars based on personal interpretation that countless others do not share are ridiculous. LE (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If you believe WP:BLP and WP:V are impractical, you should take that to Wikipedia talk:BLP or Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Countless others do share my "personal interpretation" of the basic Wikipedia policies and find no reason to make an exemption for ancestry charts. Howcheng brought up that issue some months ago. Anyway, please do not perpetuate a problem on the grounds that the problem is already widespread; that's not the way to improve Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

George and Charlotte

I think a similar edit needs to be done on these two articles as well. Details of their mother's pregnancy and delivery are obviously not relevant. Don't you agree? Keivan.f^Talk 15:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You are right. I think the pregnancy announcements could go too. Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Just curious

Why did you undo my edits on Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands and Queen Máxima of the Netherlands? – Flix11 (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I explained it here. Surtsicna (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Bosnian municipalities

Hi. I'm trying to implement a "standardized" lead section for all the municipalities in Bosnia. Please, cooperate with me on this one. My thinking is that the main information should go as follows - settlement type, administrative unit, entity and country. All in one sentence.--AirWolf ^talk 19:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I understood your intention, AirWolf, but uniformity does not always lead to the best solutions in individual articles. The lead sounds awkward when formulated like that. Surtsicna (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Prince Harry

Hi. I made an attempt to fix some of the issues found in that article. It would be great if you could also go over that section (and/or other sections) and see whether you could find more irrelevant information and trivia or not. Keivan.f^Talk 03:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Re Women are people

Elizabeth of Bosnia was a queen consort of Poland (as it says in her first para). Like many noble and royal women many were doubtless married for reasons of alliance so I think she counts as Polish! Like Prince Albert who became Queen Victoria's royal consort. quite a few women get double listings say as German princesses and Polish princesses.

And if you look at any of the "women" subcategories (eg Category:19th-century American women writers or Category:19th-century Polish women) they are described as "Non-diffusing". Hence as the label says a Polish 19th century women writer could be in the 19c Polish women writers category and the (parent) 19c Polish writers category. "Non-diffusing" is a standard arrangement to avoid "ghettoisation" of women into their own category and also the need to search two categories of (say) 19c Polish writers.Hugo999 (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Albert lived in the UK after his marriage. Elizabeth never set foot in Poland. It is misleading to categorize her as a Polish woman. She could be categorized among Hungarian women, however, since she lived in Hungary from childhood despite being Bosnian by birth. Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for creating Milena Mrazović, a fascinating article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Eddie891! I would very grateful if you could copy-edit the article or review its DYK nomination. You might also be interested in Teodora Krajewska and Jagoda Truhelka. I was inspired by the Central & Eastern European Women event of WikiProject Women in Red. Surtsicna (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Royal Weddings AfD

Not sure why you posted on my page. It's a subject I have no interest in. Please be aware that this may be seen by some as in breach of WP:CANVASS, although your notice was at least just informative and not enticing me to !vote one way or another. Best to just let an AfD run its course. It may be publicised by means of a neutrally worded notice posted at a relevant WikiProject. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Mjroots. I cannot blame you for not remembering, but you created that page back in 2009. You were automatically notified about the deletion proposal. Now, about that canvassing... would you mind voting delete? :D Surtsicna (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Can't even remember what Royal Wedding might have spurred that edit. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

After some research, I suspect it was this one. And here I was, wondering what purpose that list had! Surtsicna (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Continuation of Baroness Carrickfergus conversation

Hi Surtsicna,

The wording that you used for it is a bit strange, that's why I changed it. I think there needs to be more expansion, because someone with no knowledge about titles or anything would be confused about that. I mentioned this on Catherine's talk page, but since that conversation is believed to be closed, I wanted to make sure you saw this. Doxedevenexia (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Doxedevenexia! Please correct the wording as you see fit. After all, I am not a native speaker. Just make sure that the new wording is not misleading (i.e. suggesting that the title is actively or commonly used). Surtsicna (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed it and added a note if you'd like to look it over. I merely wrote that she holds the title, as opposed to being referred to as such while in Northern Ireland. Doxedevenexia (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join Women in Red

Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.63% of English Wikipedia's biographies).

Our priorities for May:

Women of the Sea Villains Women in Sport Central Eastern European women #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

award

		The Meghan (TBD) Award
		Awarded for notable service during the Great Meghan Name Debate of 2018 Chetsford (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Psychological novel

I did not mean to be disruptive, but my edits were all AWB-based and carefully done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I figured, since you cited WP:NOTBROKEN in one of your own edit summaries. I mostly made the edit summary for the benefit of other users. "Fixing redirects" is a common nuisance. Cheers :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I chose which redirects to retain, and which ones not to. For instance, I'd write [[action comedy]], not [[Action film#Subgenres|action comedy]]. But this was a different case since "psychological fiction" sounded more grammatically correct than "psychological novel" when referring to the genre. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Henrietta Maria Mistake

My effort to move the Henrietta Maria of France was wrong. As explained on the article, near all consorts take a name in their husband's culture. The article that should be moved is Henrietta of England. – Conservatrix (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Teodora Krajewska

On 26 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Teodora Krajewska, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Teodora Krajewska, one of the first female physicians in Bosnia-Herzegovina, rode a pony to visit her patients in remote mountain villages? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Teodora Krajewska. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Teodora Krajewska), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Chuckle

I thought this [10] had a tone of "Had he been a mere sixth at the time, she wouldn't have done it." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Haha good one! You should not have removed it then, you Grinch! :D Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect that there's a large part of the (british) population that really enjoys having a royal named "Harry", for one indoctrinated reason or another. Any opinion on that, Xover? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I work very hard to hold no opinion on any royal not safely dead for a few centuries. But I'll note that all those Henrys ol' Will was droning on about were at the time usually called "Harej" or similar in writing (don't even get into the Henris across the channel). There is certainly a long and proud tradition of Harrys in the big chair, and murdering ~~five~~six relations to get there is about par for the course. --Xover (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

He seems more like a Ken Branagh Harry to me, so let's hope not. There's a series of novels (Emberverse) where his brother become William V, Emperor of the West, Hammer of the Moors etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirects

OK I will make a truce at the moment but what improving the articles. Because when Prince Philip was created Duke of Edinburgh he was Sir Philip Mountbatten before he was created Duke of Edinburgh.Mr Hall of England (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a valid point. I think we should stick with Prince Philip for simplicity's sake. It also allows us to stick with Prince Harry, rather than having to use the ridiculously formal Prince Henry of Wales. Surtsicna (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Right but some articles do need sorting out, Inhave done this on the Heads of State of the former commonwealth realms. Shall we do them after the London Gazzete patent the Duke of Sussex? Mr Hall of England (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that who the Monarch created the Dukedom doesn't need King George VI just George VI would you agree? Not sure for Queen Victoria though?Mr Hall of England (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it says King George VI because of Queen Victoria. Surtsicna (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

True but his title on Wikipedia is George VI not King George VI.Mr Hall of England (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Prince George of Cambridge

What was the problem with this edit? I've corrected some of the names, and added a reference for ancestors of the Duchess of Cambridge. How does it violate BLP? Varro (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I apologize! It was my mistake. It would be great if you could add references for his paternal ancestors as well. Surtsicna (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The whole ancestry section on this page was removed. This is wrong and it should be replaced. Srbernadette (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

British royalty & intro consistencies

In the coming days, I'll open an Rfc at Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge & perhaps Prince George of Cambridge. The two of us alone, aren't going to agree with each other. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should open a more general RfC to establish whether Wikipedia articles must mirror one another. Surtsicna (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why you're so anti-consistency with related bio articles. But, to each his/her own. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Because people are not consistent with each other. People are individuals. Surtsicna (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Lightbulb

I never understood what was up with the name "women in red" until this. Ah ha! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome :D It took me a while too, since many women (and things generally associated with women) do not get even a red link. Surtsicna (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Milena Mrazović

On 4 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Milena Mrazović, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Milena Mrazović (pictured), Bosnia-Herzegovina's first journalist, was branded an "unbearable, quarrelsome, scheming woman" for refusing to do the government's bidding in her newspaper? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Milena Mrazović. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Milena Mrazović), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Red-linking Charlotte

Will you be fixing those red links? Leaving them on the article of a major British consort, especially amidst a GA review, is not ideal. – Conservatrix (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed them. Sorry about that. Surtsicna (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Jagoda Truhelka

On 8 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jagoda Truhelka, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite writing extensively about women's rights and being the first Croatian author to feature a feminist character, Jagoda Truhelka remains best known for her children's literature? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jagoda Truhelka. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jagoda Truhelka), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well done, Surtsicna! I'm glad to see someone writing Croatian DYKs that are not about war and military history :) Daß Wölf 15:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Daß Wölf! The article was written as part of the Central & Eastern European Women event of WikiProject Women in Red. There is another one coming up in the DYK: Elza Polak. That one, however, is a bit about military history... but you have to admit that an agronomist running clandestine gardens to feed a resistance movement is rather cool! :D Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting, I haven't even heard of Elza Polak! Daß Wölf 02:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Edith Roberts.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Tatjana Ljujić-Mijatović

On 11 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tatjana Ljujić-Mijatović, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite being a Serb, Tatjana Ljujić-Mijatović stayed in Serb-besieged Sarajevo and became the only woman member of the wartime Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tatjana Ljujić-Mijatović. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tatjana Ljujić-Mijatović), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Iva Despić-Simonović

On 12 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Iva Despić-Simonović, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Iva Despić-Simonović, court sculptor to King Alexander and Queen Maria of Yugoslavia, had to buy a cow to support her family during the Second World War and hid it in her atelier? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Iva Despić-Simonović. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Iva Despić-Simonović), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS:NICKNAME

Sorry, it should be MOS:NICKNAME - "if a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses into or after their name". Giant Snowman 09:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Giant Snowman, but is Iva really a common English-language hypocorism for Ivana or Tanja for Tatjana? Surtsicna (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Iva? Yes, in my experience. Tanja? Unsure, but the article is not located at that name... Giant Snowman 09:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That's odd. I had no idea that the name Ivana itself was common, let alone its diminutive. As for Tanja, it is commonly used in reference to the subject, including a major source cited in the article, and I did not know where to put it. Surtsicna (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Add it into a 'personal 'life' section? Giant Snowman 12:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Roza Papo

On 16 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Roza Papo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Roza Papo, who nearly lost an eye in an air raid in 1942 after refusing to take shelter, later became the first woman general in the Balkans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Roza Papo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Roza Papo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Saša Broz

I've reviewed this nomination and have a query. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Lies

I like how you keep on spreading lies. Keep on doing that. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marry Swim (talk • contribs) 11:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I love the screeching sound sock puppets make when you bust them. It's one of life's simple pleasures. Surtsicna (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Radovan Karadžić

Can I make a suggestion? Why not start a section at Talk:Radovan Karadžić to explain what nationality is appropriate for Karadžić.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not think this is a question of propriety. The man is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That much is very easy to source. He is not (yet) a national of Serbia. Non-native speakers of English often confuse nationality with ethnicity. Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Elza Polak

On 21 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elza Polak, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after she was fired by fascists for being a Jew, agronomist Elza Polak ran a network of gardens to feed the Yugoslav Partisan resistance movement during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elza Polak. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Elza Polak), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

Just to say, my undo might have seemed impolite, but I think a change like this should at least be discussed. Deb (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Not at all impolite, Deb. I thought that that sentence was misleading and not reflective of actual practice, but I do not feel strongly about it. Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Very confusing comments

Please use this page each time you act, rather than just edit-warring. I am trying to cooperate & understand your actions in this case, but I really do not get it. Please reply there, not here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)