Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
::You WERE WRONG. The coin matches the SVG exactly, except for colour. Do you really think that they had the capability to colourize coins back then??? Do you really think anybody would accept that "the coin doesn't have colour" as a valid argument?????? And the one on the coin is not like the one of the cover of that book, they're very different. I think a real minted coin is a better source then a modern book cover that doesn't even show the same thing. [[User:Fry1989|Fry1989]] ([[User talk:Fry1989|talk]]) 22:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC) |
::You WERE WRONG. The coin matches the SVG exactly, except for colour. Do you really think that they had the capability to colourize coins back then??? Do you really think anybody would accept that "the coin doesn't have colour" as a valid argument?????? And the one on the coin is not like the one of the cover of that book, they're very different. I think a real minted coin is a better source then a modern book cover that doesn't even show the same thing. [[User:Fry1989|Fry1989]] ([[User talk:Fry1989|talk]]) 22:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::No. I am correct. You have misunderstood the book cover. It shows an example of Mary's own needlework from the sixteenth century. It is an embroidery she did herself. [[User:DrKiernan|DrKiernan]] ([[User talk:DrKiernan#top|talk]]) 08:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC) |
:::No. I am correct. You have misunderstood the book cover. It shows an example of Mary's own needlework from the sixteenth century. It is an embroidery she did herself. [[User:DrKiernan|DrKiernan]] ([[User talk:DrKiernan#top|talk]]) 08:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
::I understand that exactly, and that is your problem. The coin, and the book show two different things. They are NOT the same, but you're acting like they are. Anyhow, you want sources?I'll get them for you. Since you're too lazy to go on Commons and contact the user who made them, and ask for his sources, I will myself. [[User:Fry1989|Fry1989]] ([[User talk:Fry1989|talk]]) 18:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors == |
== Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors == |
Revision as of 18:47, 28 January 2011
Ah, a nice clean talk page
Do you think you could weigh in here?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
First off, as per this edit summary: WP:AGF and WP:NPA before your comments end up on WP:ANI.
Secondly, try to keep your finger off the revert button just long enough to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- On the issue of the insult, of course I should not have used that edit summary. You are not a deliberate liar, but I believe you are blinkered by your own strong and unshakeable beliefs. You have already formed all of your opinions, and instead of looking for or at sources which challenge or balance your own opinion, you seek sources and material which you feel agree with your preconceptions. This can lead to misunderstanding when you place emphasis on something unintended by the source, or ignore sources that counter your own opinion. Surely you can see that someone looking at this objectively and with an open mind can justifiably question the claim that George VI was acting on behalf of Canada only, especially when a neutral reader cannot find such a claim in the sources given.
- You justifiably complain that I have personalized the debate, but you have done so yourself: "DrKiernan insists", "instead of explaining himself here, DrKiernan", "DrKiernan seems adamant", "Yet again, DrKiernan makes". Instead of belittling the other editor, or challenging them directly, we should both agree to comment on the content not each other.
- On the issue of the reverts, you complain about me using "the revert button" at the very same moment you yourself push it.[1][2]. Per WP:BRD, if you make an edit and someone reverts it: do not revert the revert, instead go to discussion. For contentious issues, the status quo usually holds until the new material is agreed upon. Someone who reverts an edit does not start an edit-war: it is started by someone who reverts a revert. The sequence of events was that you made an edit[3], I reverted it [4], and then, rather than discussing, you went straight to revert the revert [5]. I believe that was a mistake.
- I am reluctant to take complaints about my behavior seriously when they are made by a party who is also guilty. I will, however, withdraw that edit summary, since that comment was unfair; the sources were misinterpreted rather than deliberately misrepresented.
- In the past, I have supported you on issues where I thought you were in the right, and we have managed to work through the occasional disagreement with each other on matters where we have disagreed. I hope that by acknowledging my own poor behavior, you will re-examine your own. We clearly work in the same subject area, and I would prefer to work in an atmosphere of collegiality rather than conflict. DrKiernan (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Standards
The royal standards, as direct symbols of the person they represent, belong on the page of that person. Please do not remove them again. Fry1989 (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- What you view as unneccesary repetition is not that. You don't seem to understand that the royal standard is seperate from the coat of arms, as they are used differently. You're the only person who doesn't seem to understand that, and others have reverted your changes as well. Please stop altering the display of the Arms and Standards. If you disagree that they both should be shown, take it to the discussion board. Fry1989 (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I understand perfectly. You, however, do not seem to understand Wikipedia:No personal attacks [6] or Wikipedia:Consensus. Contrary to this claim,[7] you're the only one adding the standard. You don't have consensus for the addition. Your claim "others have reverted your changes as well" is incorrect. DrKiernan (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
page move of Abdul Malik I
Hi. I've recently been sorting out Abdul Malik, and I came across the recent page maove
- (cur | prev) 17:39, 12 March 2010 DrKiernan (talk | contribs) m (2,437 bytes) (moved Abdul Malik I of Samanid to 'Abd al-Malik I: As used, for example, in Morby's "Dynasties") (undo)
where apparently you were the admin who closed the discussion at Talk:'Abd al-Malik I. Unfortunately nobody in that discussion seemed to have noticed that as well as 'Abd al-Malik I and 'Abd al-Malik II there are also articles Abu Marwan Abd al-Malik I Saadi and Abu Marwan Abd al-Malik II, both of which are about monarchs who sometimes are referred to just by the simple name and number. My conclusion is that it would have been better to have left Abdul Malik I of Samanid alone, but to have moved 'Abd al-Malik II so as to be likewise qualified by "of Samanid". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- They were moved from "of Samanid" because Samanid isn't a country, and the names "'Abd al-Malik I and II of Samanid", are never used by reliable sources. You'll have to find some other means of disambiguating if another move is necessary. You could also just use hatnotes saying something like For 'Abd al-Malik II of Morocco see Abu Marwan Abd al-Malik II. DrKiernan (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- How about just "'Abd al-Malik I (Samanid emir)" for example? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me, but you never know with these royal moves. Sometimes people kick up a fuss. If you don't want to move them yourself, then I suggest listing them in the "Current requests" section of Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial moves to see if anyone objects. DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I've done as you suggest. Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me, but you never know with these royal moves. Sometimes people kick up a fuss. If you don't want to move them yourself, then I suggest listing them in the "Current requests" section of Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial moves to see if anyone objects. DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- How about just "'Abd al-Malik I (Samanid emir)" for example? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Gay Paul
"Not in citation given" Those are your sources. If those sources explicitly say that Fouts relationship with Paul was a lie, then that should be stated. Otherwise, its alleged. Specifically who did say that Foust was lieing... that's who we should attribute that statement too. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Any talk page lurkers?
Do you think it would be too rude of me to ask for early reviews at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia/archive1? It's the 50-year anniversary of her death in 3-weeks' time. I'm wondering whether to try and badger Sandy/Karen to push it through in time for TFA on 24 November 2010. DrKiernan (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Already reading through it, actually. The one thing that stuck out at me so far is the mention of the size of her estate; would it be possible to include a conversion to what that would be worth in today's dollars? $200K doesn't sound like a lot in 2010, so without context it seems a bit weird. → ROUX ₪ 13:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! DrKiernan (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Some preliminary thoughts at the FAC. I can't comment on sourcing obviously, not having immediate access to any of those books. → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you have the time, would you be able to return the favour? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canadian heraldry/archive1 → ROUX ₪ 23:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I will take a look at the article when I get a chance but it may be a couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! DrKiernan (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco is now a FAC
Hi, since you reviewed Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná when it was a FAC I thought you might be interested in taking a look at José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco. The article is about another 19th century Brazilian statesman and it can be considered in a certain way a follow up to the Marquis of Paraná's article. Since the Viscount of Rio Branco was the political heir of Paraná, you'll notice that the subject is similar and quite easy to follow. I'd like to see your opinion about it and whether you support or oppose its nomination as a FAC. Here is the page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco/archive1. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Commonwealth realms
I believe a Rfc concerning this matter is in the future, as it concerns alot of articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any refs for Nauru not being part of the Commonweath? http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/145172/history/ is cited in Commonwealth of Nations to support it's inclussion. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is in the Commonwealth, but is a republic in the Commonwealth not a Commonwealth realm. DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Not a bio this time, but Royal Maundy. Any chance you could take a look at it? I'm still working on images, so unlikely it will be at FAC for a couple of weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as you keep reverting my edit every time I take the Home Rule sentence out of "Political controversies", I can only presume you've got a glut of reliable sources up your sleeve to support its inclusion. May I see them? My recommendation would be to include the 'Irish Question' in lede, along with other political developments taking place during Edward's era. It doesn't belong where it is. Jonchapple (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I can't see the citation you've stuck next to the Home Rule sentence, but presumably you can as you're relying on it to form your argument it should stay. Could you explain exactly what it says re: Edward controversially opposing Irish Home Rule? Jonchapple (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- The article does not say Edward "controversially" opposed home rule. It just says he also opposed it. The article content is relevant, referenced, verifiable and neutral.
- If your objection is truly to calling Irish Home Rule a political controversy (even though it is self-evident that it was a political controversy), then why are you removing the content instead of simply altering the sub-heading? If you really objected to the section heading then you would change it to something like "Influence and opinions", rather than remove relevant, referenced, verifiable, neutral content that is of obvious interest. DrKiernan (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Of course it was a political controversy, but I still haven't got any evidence it's one Edward weighed in on. The link leads to a subscription-only service, one that I'm assuming you must be subscribed to. What does it say?
- If it's not an area Edward was specifically involved in, it should be in the lede, with the rest of the details of the politics of the Edwardian era. Jonchapple (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- In a section on his political opinions it says "in 1886 he was strongly Liberal Unionist on the question of Irish home rule"; in discussing his working relationship with prime minister Arthur Balfour it says they found common ground because they shared "a hostility to Irish home rule". In a section discussing his views of and visits to Ireland when king, it says "The king was not a home-ruler, and his reign came too late for a revival of the various initiatives for a form of dual monarchy which he and Gladstone had unsuccessfully proposed in the 1870s." DrKiernan (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Would you be opposed to me renaming the section "Politics opinions" or "Political views" or something similar? Jonchapple (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- In a section on his political opinions it says "in 1886 he was strongly Liberal Unionist on the question of Irish home rule"; in discussing his working relationship with prime minister Arthur Balfour it says they found common ground because they shared "a hostility to Irish home rule". In a section discussing his views of and visits to Ireland when king, it says "The king was not a home-ruler, and his reign came too late for a revival of the various initiatives for a form of dual monarchy which he and Gladstone had unsuccessfully proposed in the 1870s." DrKiernan (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
George V an his elder brother
DrKiernan,
How many months are there between january 1864 and june 1865? Looks very much like 17 to me. Mvdleeuw (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
F and A
Thanks, DrK; however, I got nervous and found someone else for tomorrow; could you do the Christman weekend instead? Tony (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about the late reply to your email; I generally only check it once a day. I'm afraid the Christmas weekend is out for me; I'd be very, very unlikely to have any time. DrKiernan (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
to you
I have left you many messages on my talk page.Please read them.Love,Miss Allison Sharon Weir.--92.9.229.251 (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Wallis
I've reverted an IP's edit as I'm not 100% sure it was constructive. The restored text does seem to carry a POV though. Would you cast your eyes over it and either revert me, or maybe rewrite the offending text to a more neutral POV if possible? Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Diodecimus (Postnoms in lead)
Okay, so this fellow Diodecimus has added the major royals' postnominals to their lead paragraph. Now, I've lloked high and low, and it seems the guidelines are in his favour. However, when one looks upon the articles themselves, many of the senior royals have so very many letters that it becomes rather untidy and unseemly. Since said fellow has apparently gone, do you think I can get away with simply removing them, or should I try to create a guideline exception? Yours as ever, Sir — ✝DBD 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I support their removal. I think you should edit the articles, and only bother with trying to change the Manual of Style if they are put back. DrKiernan (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks..
...for the copy-editing on Windsor Castle. Very much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
RfC Notification
Hey. I'm leaving you this message b/c you participated in a discussion which resulted in an RfC that you might be interested in taking part in. NickCT (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies
Hope you did not get offended by my position back there in Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies' FAC nomination. When I said that your opinion was important, I really meant that. However, I noticed that you focused on minor "details" (if we could call them as such). What did you think of the article itself? The text? The information on it? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm not offended. I don't mind people having contrary viewpoints when they are well-reasoned and based on the sources. I think all the comments of the supporters are perfectly justifiable, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the article pass FA. DrKiernan (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please, take a look back there. See if it's better now. I made all the changes you proposed. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- DrKienan, I'm sorry, but "senhora" is not part of the title. Pedro II was also called "senhor Dom Pedro II". Senhor could be translated as "mister" and "senhora" to "Mrs.". Like saying "Mr. John Simpson" or something similar. --Lecen (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's what Kidder says, which is the reference given for the titles and styles.
- I'm sorry too, but I still do not feel able to support the article. I don't especially mind "Don Carlos IV, King of Spain", or "King Dom João VI of Portugal" because these forms are used within english literature. However, "was referred to by the honorific "Donna"[A] from birth." is in the first paragraph of the lead, cited to Barman, p. 424. In my copy of Barman, there's no mention of Teresa Cristina on page 424. The note refers to Dom and Dona in Portuguese used for the Brazilian nobility rather than the Neapolitan royal family. I don't doubt that the form was used, but if no other biography covers this detail, then ought we to do so?
- I noticed that the first honorific, before her bolded name, was added to the lead in the edit immediately preceding my own [8]. It was never there before, and before it was added the extra footnotes were unnecessary. Is it really so important to include these honorifics? They are not included in the British royalty articles, and I don't see the articles suffering as a result. "Infanta Doña Maria Isabella" for example, is called "Infanta Maria Isabella" later on, so if the simpler form can be used, why use the complicated form, which requires an interruptive footnote, in the lead?
- I have stressed that I am not opposed to the article's promotion, as these suggestions are, as you correctly call them, only details. They are not sufficient for me to object, but they are sufficient for me not to support. DrKiernan (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Barman source is not used to back the "Donna" but the "Dona". She was called "Dona Teresa Cristina" in Brazil. Kidder is the one I used as source for the "Donna".
- That's another problem: you're an expert on British royalty. But the Brazilian royalty it's not the same as the British royalty. It isn't. The Portuguese and the Two Sicilian royalty had its origin in the Castillian royalty. It's practices, traditions, costumes, etc... All that came from Spain. "Aio", "infante", "don" came from Spain. And "senhora" was not a title as "dona", but merely a way of referring someone. Anyway, I'm trying to act the articles taking in accord the Brazilian/Portuguese/Spanish/Italian traditions, not the British. But I'd like to thank you once more for taking your time to deal with all this. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- DrKienan, I'm sorry, but "senhora" is not part of the title. Pedro II was also called "senhor Dom Pedro II". Senhor could be translated as "mister" and "senhora" to "Mrs.". Like saying "Mr. John Simpson" or something similar. --Lecen (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please, take a look back there. See if it's better now. I made all the changes you proposed. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Your opinion
Dr. K., would you mind dropping by Benjamin Harrison's talk page and adding a third-party opinion to a dispute there? I know your work on Wiki doesn't involve the American presidency, but biography is biography, at least in terms of how to write and keep a Featured Article. I've admired the biographies you've written and thought you might be able to help us form consensus on this little dispute. If you could spare a few minutes, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Coemgenus 12:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Orders
I wonder if you have any input in answer to my question at Talk:List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II#Orders. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear DrK, thank you for your perceptive and helpful review of Octavia's article. I'm delighted you found it merited promotion to GA, and the changes you suggested have decidedly improved it. If I can ever reciprocate with a Peer Review or GA nom or FAC, please don't hesitate. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Monograms
Stop removing them over the most trivial of reasons. If a monogram is not to your exacting standards, go on Commons, and contact the creator and ask him to make changes. Fry1989 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your additions do not have consensus: Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots#Royal Monogram.. You should not be edit-warring. See WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS; if your edits are reverted, do not revert the revert, wait for consensus to change on the talk page. DrKiernan (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're the one who keeps removing them for no reason. You have no proof when they're wrong, you just want to be in the way. You tried ti with Mary's, and were proven wrong by a coin, so I don't trust anything you say regarding if a monogram is correct or not. You should prove why something that is as personal to someone as a coat of arms, should not be on their page. Fry1989 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, I have good reasons for removing them. They are unsourced original research, and I have provided proof that they are wrong. It is you who must provide proof not me. The onus is on the adder not the remover. Provide a source showing that these forms were used by the individual. DrKiernan (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, you were wrong. You showed the cover of a book, then redacted when you found a coin disproving yourself. Now you're trying to do it with a relief on a metal gate, which obviously can't be the same as a graphic of the monogram. You have no argument for why they shouldn't be on a person's page. Fry1989 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- No. My sources are the needlework example and the coin example; neither is the same as your version. Note in the needlework that the color used is blue, and the coin is clearly not colored. Hence, using red is original research. You must show that Mary used red in the version of her monogram as shown on the coin, which is the version you wish to depict. At present we have two proven examples of her monogram, and neither matches yours. DrKiernan (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- You WERE WRONG. The coin matches the SVG exactly, except for colour. Do you really think that they had the capability to colourize coins back then??? Do you really think anybody would accept that "the coin doesn't have colour" as a valid argument?????? And the one on the coin is not like the one of the cover of that book, they're very different. I think a real minted coin is a better source then a modern book cover that doesn't even show the same thing. Fry1989 (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that exactly, and that is your problem. The coin, and the book show two different things. They are NOT the same, but you're acting like they are. Anyhow, you want sources?I'll get them for you. Since you're too lazy to go on Commons and contact the user who made them, and ask for his sources, I will myself. Fry1989 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're the one who keeps removing them for no reason. You have no proof when they're wrong, you just want to be in the way. You tried ti with Mary's, and were proven wrong by a coin, so I don't trust anything you say regarding if a monogram is correct or not. You should prove why something that is as personal to someone as a coat of arms, should not be on their page. Fry1989 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)