Talk:House of Mukhrani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Georgia (country) (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Dynastic princes[edit]

References on English Wikipedia to the House of Mukhrani, the senior branch of Georgia's former Bagrationi dynasty, as dynastic princes are being minimised by Jaqeli despite the fact that he asked and was told here that the standard English translation of Mukhranbatoni is "Prince of Mukhrani". Jaqeli and I disagree about the dynasticity of the Mukhrani in Georgia, which is why instead of substituting "dynast" for "nobleman" as I think it should be, I've compromised, restoring NPOV by simply omitting "nobleman" and leaving "Georgian" -- a term on which we both agree. FactStraight (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Dear @Olivia Winfield:, 68.109.175.166, or whoever you are. First off, please don't accuse me of stalking as both articles are written by me and remain on my watchlist. Second, can you please explain what you actually want? You keep inserting cn tags for the statements which are already sourced. Also, you may have noticed that I removed the contentious opening definition of the family as "princely" because the family produced both royal and non-royal branches. If you have anything to discuss please to do it here. You hectic edit summaries, incessant edit-warring behavior and refusal to engage in meaningful discussion are not helpful at all and will inevitably lead to sanctions. --KoberTalk 07:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

They are not written entirely by you- what an ego! Removing cited work when you cannot provide anything else is vandalism- I accuse you. Perhaps you are a sockpuppet. Anything you wish to discuss you can do on the talk page of the article- how dare you presume to tell me what to do? Your hectic edit summaries, incessant edit-warring behavior and refusal to engage in meaningful discussion are not helpful at all and will inevitably lead to sanctions. Stop stalking me please. Thanks!Olivia Winfield (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Is that all you have to say? I'm closing my eyes on your unjustified accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry this time. Can you please explain what changes do you want to be made in the article and what is rationale for you massive [cn] tagging? --KoberTalk 07:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's enough- yes I do. Close your eyes all you want- the accusations stand. Provide citations for your work or allow others to do do- this is supposed to be an encyclopedia after all. Removing citations and cited work is vandalism-pure and simple.Olivia Winfield (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to repeat myself. Can you please explain what changes do you want to be made in the article and what is rationale for you massive [cn] tagging? --KoberTalk 07:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Olivia Winfield: Please tone your voice down. Kober is one of the most experienced, professional and neutral editor on Wiki and I'd suggest you to change your attitude. If you see any problems into the article which may well be please first discuss and explain in concrete what you want exactly. Jaqeli 10:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC) @Jaqeli: Don't ever tell me what to do. I have been accused of being your sockpuppet already so I suggest you worry about that. You have caused so many problems that anyone who might agree with you is accused. Thanks a lot.Olivia Winfield (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Olivia, please stop abusing the tags. The information provided in the article is sourced and verifiable. What do you actually want? sources for the fact that the Mukhranians were in possession of Mukhrani? --KoberTalk 07:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I concur. FactStraight (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)