User talk:FactStraight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Royal intermarriage[edit]

Thanks for the explanation regarding the examples and their usefulness. I'd now tend to agree - replied on the talk page also concerning your citation style point.

I've nominated the article for Good Article status and if you've the time or the inclination, a review would be much appreciated. Thanks! Sotakeit (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Your Luxembourg revision[edit]

Hello FactStraight. I am afraid I don't agree with your revision of my addition to the Luxemburg article. From 1815 until 1839 Luxemburg had the same status that the Duchy of Limburg had from 1839 until 1867. Simultaneously a monarchy within the German Confederation AND a province of the Netherlands. I distinctly remember Luxemburg celebrating the 150th anniversary of its independence in 1989! Luxemburg became a fully independent country only in 1839. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Prince Casimir of Bourbon-Two Sicilies for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prince Casimir of Bourbon-Two Sicilies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Casimir of Bourbon-Two Sicilies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Mcewan (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth II BRD[edit]

When you have been reverted, per WP:BRD it's not good practice to re-revert. The stable version of the article has never included the "surname" Windsor, so you'll need to seek consensus for your change on the article's talk page rather than just trying to push it through. Thanks, Jon C. 12:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Camilla[edit]

Neither source you cited claims to give an exhaustive presentation of HRH full styles and titles. As the wife of her husband, she automatically has the feminine forms of all his titles – she cannot technically only hold some. He is the Prince of Wales, she is his lawful wife, she is the Princess of Wales, whether that title is used or not. DBD 23:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you are attributing that title to Camilla without a reliable source citation that is more authoritative than the Royal Family's and Prince of Wales' official websites. Once challenged, re-insertion of "Princess of Wales" on the grounds that "she automatically has the feminine form of all his titles" is inadmissable synthesis, given that she has never been accorded that title by the Crown. Even if such existed, it would have to be juxtaposed in the article with the engagement announcement and official website statement which give her restricted title, explicitly omitting "Princess of Wales". FactStraight (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you undoing my edist to correct URL of my Web Sites[edit]

I've just realised that you are undoing my edits to the Wikipedia page on Prince George William of Hanover (1880–1912) and possibly other pages.

I've been editing the page to correct URLs to my web pages which are referenced in the Wikipedia page.

I'm not the editor or other contributor to the page but it does appear either I'm wasting your time or you are wasting my time by me inserting the correct URL whilst you are changing the URL back to non existent links?

Regards

Allan Raymond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanraymond (talkcontribs) 20:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal websites about topics other than yourself fail to meet Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources, violating Wikipedia's personal website prohibition. Although references to others' personal websites may be tolerated, despite being unacceptable for citations, it appears self-promotional to drive readers to your own site to verify facts in Wikipedia articles. While I have no doubt that it is not your intention to use Wikipedia as advertisement -- and therefore I have not reported it, I have substituted sources which Wikipedia accepts as reliable. FactStraight (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not personally responsible for or contributed to the Wikipedia page on Prince George William of Hanover (1880–1912). Whoever is the author for reasons known to themselves must have decided to link to my personal web pages. My sole purpose in editing the Wikipedia page was to show that the URL(s) for my web pages has changed due to moving to a different Web Host. It is illogical to show incorrect URLs which I am sure you will concur? It was not my decision or involvement to show links from the Wikipedia page to my web pages and if anyone deems it appropriate then the links to my web site can be removed. I am not in the business of self promoting my web site by including links from Wikipedia page

Bourbons of India[edit]

Dear Fact Straight I am a historian and have studied the Bourbons of India and have a book written on the family that will be published at the end of the year. I respect your opinion but I have edited the page adding some things that are based on research. I do please ask you not to undo my contribution. Many thanks Thubten Namdrol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thubten Namdrol (talkcontribs) 23:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thubten Namdrol, thank you for clarifying that you expect to be able to provide reliable sources to substantiate the additions you have made to the Bourbons of India article. Please feel free to add those edits back into the article once you are able to include a published source which documents your allegations and which other editors here on Wikipedia can check to verify accuracy. Until then, please do not add the edits, since they cannot be verified. FactStraight (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretender[edit]

When unsourced material involving BLPs is removed, you shouldn't just reinstate the claims. BLP policy can't be overriden on an article's talk page. This is not an uncommon problem with pretender related claims, I've run into it before. They must be reliably sourced. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:Son/Daughter of in Article Titles[edit]

Hello FactStraight. Honestly, I'm very uncomfortable with using a "son/daughter" model, but the issue is that within the Georgian royal families the personal names recur so frequently that using simply "Prince/Princess X of Georgia" model will inevitably lead to complicated disambig problems. I'd welcome any suggestion as I also dislike the titles I use.--KoberTalk 04:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

I appreciate the comment on Talk (I've never done this before!) I understand your point regarding the "Gotha" I certainly agree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Nicholson (talkcontribs) 20:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC) bot|DPL bot]] (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian nobility[edit]

Hello! It is clear that Hungarian nobility was created by the King of Hungary in Hungary (it is true that borders are no longer same, see Treaty of Trianon, so I think we don't need two categories for Hungarian nobility (Category:Hungarian nobility and Categor:Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary), because the two are one and same. For example the French nobility also do not have a category under the name of "Category:Nobility in the Kingdom of France". --Norden1990 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Norden1990 does not see a difference between Kingdom of Hungary and Hungary. His understanding of the Latin term Natio Hungarica for clear Slovak Person.[[1]] Some unconstructive discussion with this user.[[2]] User:Norden1990 also claimed: "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century", unfortunately his demasked POV edits: Jan Jesenius - Slovak person [[3]][[4]] or another nationality was not relevant... edits: [[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]]... And typical behavior, User:Norden1990 wrote "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid."[[9]] and here deleted name Oradea [[10]] or [[11]][[12]]. Indeed quality of the article first. Category:French nobility has a category under the name of the article French nobility and there is not article "Hungarian nobility", only Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. And this edit[[13]]? It needed new category: Jews in Kingdom of Hungary or something similar, also scientists in Kingdom of Hungary[[14]] etc. --Omen1229 (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

lady waiting?[edit]

Thanx for ruining my contrib. I mannaged to get a nice article in the NL wiki, but forget that i will do the same in here! You just deleted some crucial sources, have it your way! 109.131.48.240 (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Carole Radziwill#Princess or not princess[edit]

Please discuss it there and try to get consensus. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth II[edit]

The question posed at the Elizabeth II RfC, at which you commented, has been amended [15] to clarify a potential misunderstanding. Please re-visit the question and your comment and amend if necessary. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Move of Philippe, King of the Belgians[edit]

hello there,

if you feel that the name of the article is unwarranted, please feel free to open a discussion at the talk page and I can move the article back if there is consensus to it. I see it however falling into the category of rapid moves since there is a set format for Belgian monarchs. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on manual of style for Royal family members' titles and honours[edit]

Thanks for putting your inputs into the discussion that we have. I'd also like to invite if you can provide your inputs on our Dispute resolution at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Prince_George_of_Cambridge.23Title , given your knowledge on Royal Nobility articles. Pseud 14 (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Bagrationi dynasty[edit]

Hello. Stop vandalising the article. If you feel like there needs something to change in the article open the discussion in the talk page and not just cutting out the important information out of the article. GeorgianJorjadze 18:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your views on my talk page. I am replying to your comments on the talk page of Bagrationi dynasty. FactStraight (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You mean your post dating 12 November 2011? GeorgianJorjadze 19:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Margaretha[edit]

My edit summary sounds a bit harsh. I sincerely hope it didn't offend you. I'm sure we agree at least about this edit. As for Margaretha, I tried to find more information about her, but to no avail. There is no indication that she is a notable individual. I'm sure you realize that merely being related to someone is not a notability criterium. She has no constitutional position in either of the countries. If all she does is attend weddings and "other family events", I don't see what makes her more notable than Sarah Obama - who presumably does the same. Another serious issue with the article, that inevitably accompanies lack of notability, is the amount of unsourced and inadequetely sourced information. If it were all removed, per BLP policy, nothing substantial would remain. Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

We disagree. She is legally a princess of two monarchies, a dual status that has become so rare as to be unique. Moreover, it is a legally regulated form of public official and, by its nature, notable. Sisters and sisters-in-law of elected presidents are not normally subsidized, hold no official titles, do not have their marriages and those of their descendants regulated by law. IMHO, they belong to a unique category of notable persons: dynasts. FactStraight (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we do disagree, and I apologize if I ever implied that your opinion is senseless. I understand your argument, but I had to note that it is entirely contrary to WP:NOTINHERITED. The only legally regulated things about her are her titles. There must be more than tens of thousands of people with various legally recognized titles - from knights and dames to princes and princesses. That alone surely does not make them notable. Prince Franz of Liechtenstein is also a dynast - and he is actually entitled to succeed to a throne. I fail to see what makes him less notable than Margaretha. Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the acknowledgement of my concerns. I didn't merely say that Margaretha is a princess in two countries, but that "She is legally a princess of two monarchies, a dual status that has become so rare as to be unique" -- differentiating her from nobles and non-nobles who hold titles by pointing out that she legally holds dynastic titles, a status not shared by "tens of thousands" at all. WP:NOTINHERITED is a guideline point which I think is often applied over-broadly, specifically failing to take into account the unique status of dynasts who hold rare legal titles, who often receive state subsidies and/or defrayment of expenses based on their status (not as compensation for discharge of specific job duties), who receive coverage in news and books by virtue of that status, and whose marriages and those of their children are regulated unlike those of any other persons in their respective nations. So even if that point in the guideline were applicable broadly, I don't see that it should be applied in cases such as this, nor are we obliged to do so. FactStraight (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

3RR states: 'more than three reverts' - that was number four - pls self-revert! --IIIraute (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

3RR says you can't game the system by edit-warring up to the line in order to keep your preferred version intact: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring...The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Please desist and discuss on the talk page. FactStraight (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
pls self-revert your fourth edit, or I will report you - and that's a promise. Thanks. --IIIraute (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Please feel free to report us both, yourself also for not engaging in discussion of this matter on the talk page prior to making threats. FactStraight (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
You do not have to worry - I will engage! There is no threat. You clearly violated 3RR, before posting on the talk-page. Please self-revert. I will not warn you again. The precondition for a talk-page discussion is, that you do respect WP policies. Thank you. --IIIraute (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, please do not threaten me again -- take it to the talk page. As of this writing you have yet to explain your rationale on the talk page, despite reverting my edit on the false ground that I maintained that the German nobility had been abolished. Now you are attempting to game the system which is every bit as much a violation as 3RR. If you wish to seek to reach consensus, the only place for that is on the talk page -- not in gaming the system. FactStraight (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Spain and Portugal[edit]

What thoughts do you have on these issues Template talk:Viceroyalties of the Spanish Empire#Removal of Portugal or Talk:Portuguese Restoration War#‎de-Spanishizing?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's outside my area of historical focus. Good luck! FactStraight (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wit's end[edit]

I sincerely do not know what else to do with this. It feels like I'm being bullied into submitting to any kind of accusations and - what's worse - into leaving that incorrect term in the article. Sorry! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I regret that you feel frustrated in this matter, but I fear that I'm unable to usefully advise you since I believe that you continue to edit against consensus, and since I have explained how I came to that conclusion I have nothing more to add at this point. I clearly understand that you have a different interpretation, nonetheless I am unpersuaded and must respectfully disagree. Good luck! FactStraight (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
As I have disclosed, you have bought into false claims that a source has been given to show Victoria listed as "The Crown Princess" elsewhere, but none whatsoever has actually been given, and the only consensus established is based on those false claims. Doesn't that concern you at all? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

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 find a resolution. The thread is "Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User notification re Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge[edit]

Hi FactStraight, I am notifying you as an editor who has participated in previous discussions on this topic. We now have multiple reliable sources for the descent of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge from Edward IV. However, Virgosky has added sourced information which appears to contradict the finding (a typographical error according to Patrick Cracroft-Brennan) and repeatedly removes a sourced retraction of the same information which I subsequently added. The edit warring continues which is futile and harmful to Wikipedia. I would appreciate your help building consensus on the talk page in order to resolve the dispute. HelenOnline 09:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

LPC[edit]

FYI see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles -- PBS (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

House of Oldenburg[edit]

Thanks. Turns out I was wrong. I always assumed the Sonderburgs were the younger line, probably because they held their fief from the Dukes of Gottorp. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Princess Ortrud of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ortenburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User apparently refusing to accept agreed compromise at the MOS RfC[edit]

User Surtsicna is apparently not going to accept the agreed compromise at the MOS RfC "These are traditional, rather than legal, styles and titles sometimes used by courtesy" is allowed to be inserted once into an appropriate place in relevant articles." As soon as you put that in a few articles Surtsicna removed them. It was not just you and me that agreed on this, user Hordaland also said "The statement, also quoted above, "With respect to these articles, it is reasonable to insert a disclaimer ..., as appropriate, that any titles and styles are traditional courtesies rather than legal...." (insert = mention within article text), would be fine as a guideline but not strict policy. I wouldn't worry about the navboxes (no disclaimer needed there)". As soon as you offered the compromise (thank you) I accepted it, I waited for a day or two to close the RfC specifically to see if Surtsicna was going to object, he said nothing, but as soon as the agreed upon compromise was started to be applied, he removes it. I do not want to argue about royalty any more, the question is why Surtsicna is refusing to accept consensus. I have left a message on Surtsicna's talk page, the reason why I am leaving this here on yours is that you and Surtsicna obviously share some of the same areas of interest in editing, I wonder if you have a good relationship with him and can persuade him to be reasonable, I really do not want to have to fight any more battles about this. Thank youSmeat75 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Smeat75, I think you rushed to close the discussion before it deviated further from the track you wanted it on. I have commented below the archive tags. I can't see where the agreement/compromise is and how it was arrived at. It should be discussed there instead of splintered all over the place. Two or three users alone can't create a "compromise" when many other users are involved and discussing. Seven Letters 01:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Please go back and look at the page on MOS again. I asked an experienced admin to evaluate the RfC, write a summary, and close it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

To the attention of Your Royal Wikiness[edit]

Since you were one of the main participants in previous RfC's on the subject, perhaps you would be interested to know that I started here a thread whose aim is to throw ideas around about potential improvements on how we denote people with pretensions to royal and feudal titles. (Apologies for the title of this message! I can't help introducing a bit of levity to "serious" subjects.) -The Gnome (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

anti-communism[edit]

Bolshevism and Communism mean the same thing. If someone is anti-bolshevik, he is also anti-communist. The fact that someone identifies bolshevikism with the Jews and is anti-semitic doesn't mean he isn't also anti-communist. An anti-semitic person would not identify Jews with something he supports.

I have studied history for over 50 years and know how to identify an anti-communist. I know what terms are used to describe an anti-communist. Are you saying the actual words "anti-communist" must be used and not words that mean the same thing like anti-bolshevik? If you disagree with my categorizing in one instance, this is not grounds for removing other entries where there can be no doubt.

I am sorry, but my computer skills are very limited. This is about all I can do on the computer. Also, my eyesignt is failing and I may not be able to do this much longer.

````VY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.109.113 (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You may not use "anti-Semitism" as a synonym for "anti-Bolshevik": someone can be anti-Semitic and not be "anti-Bolshevik". Nor can you assume that someone who is anti-Bolshevik is, ipso facto, anti-Semitic. Nor does your "50 years experience" allow you to cut corners here: any anonymous contributor on Wikipedia can make the same assertion and we have no way of verifying their bona fides, so the proof must be visible in the source you cite. The problem is that you are not citing any sources, instead you are looking for "clues" that people have what you consider "anti-communist" affiliations, and then using that to state unequivocally that they are "anti-communist". That is considered synthesis and is not allowed on Wikipedia. So, yes, you can only label someone "anti-communist" on Wikipedia if a reliable source does so explicitly and, in the case of BLPs you can usually only safely label someone "anti-communist" if that person has described him/herself as such (look at the disagreement over Nelson Mandela's salleged affiliation with communism). Mere disagreement with some aspects of communist philosophy or activity does not establish that someone is "anti-communist" (or vice versa): Trotsky and Lenin disapproved of one another's politics, but that didn't make either man "anti-communist". Mensheviks were "anti-Bolshevik", but not necessarily anti-communist. You don't base your conclusions on sufficient evidence, and you fail to document whatever evidence you do rely upon with footnotes in each bio. FactStraight (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You should get your Facts Straight on Greek History. Claiming that George II of Greece was not anti-communist suggests a lack of knowledge of modern Greek history and also of the US involvement in the Greek civil war. History is not hagiography and being a fan of royal genealogies does not necessarily mean the negation of serious cultural, social and political history. Depending on the time period "anti-communist" can mean different things... sure... the same way you can be anti-communist because of your Anarchist or socialist leanings... but in the case of George II of Greece and his supporters anti-communism also implied a clear hostility to democratic rules, and of course to the Greek Resistance (except for the ultra-right resistance movements) and the willingness to "recycle" former Greek Nazi collaborators by enlisting them in the royalist armed forces... It also often went together with anti-Seminitism as evidenced by Greek collaboration in the deportation and the spoliation of Greek Jews and even today by the present rise of the Greek ultra-right which is rabidly anti-communist and also anti-Semitic ! Any book on Greek history will confirm the anti-communism of George II of Greece : plse read Mark Mazower's books on Greek history Aerecinski (talk)Aerecinski —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Expanding article on Anna Bagration-Gruzinsky[edit]

Hi FactStraight! I saw that you reversed my expansion of the article on Anna Bagration-Gruzinsky. I read your comment where you reversed the edit, and I now understand why you had to do so (regarding the NPOV being compromised and the inclusion of reliable, not solely self-published, sources). However, I do need to clarify that I do not have a Wikipedia editing account, and, therefore, I do not understand how I could be "blocked." I have corrected the portions of the article expansion that I believe you found objectionable, but please let me know if I still made any mistakes in sourcing. Thank you. -Seth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5900:3D6:8DA4:EF6:9527:CE19 (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of List of castles and fortresses in Switzerland[edit]

You reverted my removal of Jenny Castle from the List of castles and fortresses in Switzerland, with the comment ever heard of Neuschwanstein Castle? Lots of alternative terms in English for bldgs in UK, eg Stately home, but Castle, Palace or Fort elsewhere, which, to be honest, I do not quite understand.

This article is a list of castles and fortresses, not a list of Schlosses (to coin a word). According to my Collins German->English dictionary, Schloss in German can translate to Castle, Palace, Mansion or Chateaux in English. The article behind this link makes no attempt to claim Jenny is a castle and, in fact, Jenny Castle is a link to Jenny Estate resulting from a previous editor's mis-translation of Schloss. There isn't a hint of fortification (or even mock-fortification) in the article. So it simply doesn't belong in the list, and all we are doing is misleading readers by leaving it there. It isn't in my opinion, a difficult call.

As for Neuschwanstein, I think that is a red herring. It perhaps calls into question the date criteria in our definition of castle, but that is something you should take up with that article and its authors (of which I'm not one). Either way, Neuschwanstein is a more difficult call; despite its name I think I'd describe it as palace in mock-castle form. But that really doesn't impact the case for Jenny Castle. Perhaps if I'd have thought of it, I would have used a different change comment, but I would still have removed the entry.

I'd also note that the 'cite needed' that you put back has been there for well over a year, which does rather suggest nobody is going to provide a cite for this place being a castle. So, on the whole, I've decided to re-revert. If you feel the need to re-re-revert, I'd ask you to please find that cite and quote it when you do so. Thanks. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How to resolve an edit war[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at House of Dlamini shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Derek Andrews (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Content disputes at Giorgi Bagrationi (born 2011) and related articles[edit]

Hi. I see you and Jaqeli have been disputing the proper way to achieve NPOV on several articles relating to living descendants of the last king of Georgia. I have warned Jaqeli against engaging in an edit war, and I am going to give you the same warning. Edit warring is not an acceptable way of handling a content dispute, even if you are convinced you are right and other people are wrong. If you and Jaqeli cannot agree on a way to present "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" on this topic (as required by WP:NPOV), then you need to seek outside assistance in accordance with Wikipedia's established dispute resolution procedures. If you continue to engage in edit wars, you risk being topic-banned or blocked from editing entirely. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate your intent, I suspect that you know that User:Jaqeli appealed to you to block my edits because his only other option was to revert my edits again in defiance of User:Elockid's request that he desist from reverting more than once on any page, given his long history of edit-warring, the resulting blocks and mounting, recent complaints that he has resumed that pattern of editing English Wikipedia. Your contention that this is a "content dispute" and therefore both parties are equally wrong I must dissent from: He makes no bones about strongly favoring one pretender (Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky) over another (David Bagration of Mukhrani) in the rivalry over potential restoration of the monarchy in Georgia. I have consistently edited to restore neutrality to the related Bagrationi dynasty articles pursuant to multiple, English-language, independent, reliable sources that I enumerated in detail at Jaqeli's demand here (bottom of section), to which he replied "Those news agencies know nothing about Bagrations and know totally nothing about the genealogy and the history of Bagrations. I've presented the source of the historians and scientists who are doctors and professors in their field and all of them sign the memorandum of all Georgian Bagrations that the royal head of the dynasty is Prince Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky. No one, NO ONE supports self-proclaimed David of Mukhrani. And all Georgian Bagrations, agaian I repeat ALL GEORGIAN BAGRATIONS recognize Prince Nugzar as the head of all 3 Georgian branches." The notion that until someone else comes along to protect Wikipedia's neutrality on articles from a notoriously opinionated and combative contributor is unfair and I ask that you read and consider the specifics of the dispute so that you can give him the advice he needs to understand the NPOV policy and why it cannot be allowed to be defied because he believes, as he has asserted, that as a Georgian, he knows what "the truth" is and is free to disregard reliable sources. You know that it is not true that in every content dispute, both sides are equally wrong with respect to the fundamental charge of contributors: improving the encyclopedia. Please be fair. FactStraight (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say (or didn't mean to suggest) that you are both wrong. I said that edit warring is not the way to handle the problem. That applies even if one side really is right. (I'm not going to say here, BTW, if I believe one side is right, or which side it is — my opinion doesn't matter, what matters is what the reliable sources say.) — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Please be advised that I have brought up this issue on the administrators' incidents noticeboard page (WP:ANI), in order to get input from more admins. I have taken this step because, in my opinion, my past dealings with Jaqeli and my past edits on various Georgia-related pages preclude me from taking any administrative action here myself (see the WP:INVOLVED policy). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You've been reported at WP:ANI for edit warring about the Bagrationi dynasty[edit]

The above comments by another admin have already brought this to your attention, but you've been reported for edit warring. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jaqeli and User:FactStraight. You may wish to respond there, because a report at ANI could lead to blocks of one or both parties. Your best plan is to agree to stop making any Bagrationi-related edits until consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not edit Wikipedia over the last several days and therefore did not have time to respond to this charge before it was auto-archived here. Do I need to re-initiate it? How? FactStraight (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
As an observer, I advise not reopening the AN/I right now. There's no point, it's in the AN/I ether now. Instead, create a centralised discussion for the Georgian Royal House issues, and follow the steps of WP:DR. If you feel you and Jaqeli can't come to an agreement, try the dispute resolution noticeboard. If it's possible, pushing for a larger discussion is the most effective way of dealing with edit warring, and more importantly, allows you to push for a resolution on the issue without fighting it out yourself. Regards, CMD (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Do you really think this issue would be appropriate for a centralized discussion? My understanding has been that ordinary content disputes are generally not considered to have a wide enough impact on Wikipedia to merit the centralized discussion mechanism (see WP:CENTNOT). Perhaps the talk page for the "Royalty and Nobility" wikiproject (WT:ROYALTY) might be a better place to go at this point. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
@RichWales, I apologise, I was not clear. I meant centralised with regards to the Bagrotoni dynasty articles, so it is just on one page rather than an edit war over multiple articles. I forget my wikilingo sometimes. WT:ROYALTY may be a good place to have this discussion. CMD (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I've posted at WT:ROYALTY, in hopes of getting some outside input. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlayCuz. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry about this. I thought it best to clear up the accusation made at Talk:House of Dlamini one way or the other. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

FactStraight (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I maintained separate accounts, not sock puppets, for 2 different types of articles I've edited on Wikipedia, as readily confirmed by the edit histories of the two accounts. House of Dlamini was the exception: it happened to be on both article types (Africa-related and royalty-related articles), and one overlap edit occurred accidentally between the two accounts in August 2013 -- but for which I cannot provide a diff because that crucial evidence has been redacted by my accuser. As soon as I realized the error, I resumed the status quo ante in which the two accounts do not edit the same articles. So although House of Dlamini content has been reverted for years over a disputed copyvio which dates back to 2007, yet it has only been edited once, nearly six months ago, by both PlayCuz and FactStraight, and not again ever since -- and it is obvious from examination that this was done unintentionally -- no advantage whatsoever was taken of it during the discussions and edits on the article. There is, then, no pattern of ongoing abuse here, in fact, the reverse is clearly the case (even the accuser acknowledged that sockpuppetry never became a matter of dispute in the article's history, and that it had been mentioned only in "passing" by the other edit-warrior): Neither party pressed the point of the other's using different accounts to challenge each other's rationales on article edits, because it is the rationale (enforceable copyvio), not the incidental means, which has been and remains the point of relevant dispute, despite the present diversion. After the recent edit war (in which both I and Royalty2012 mentioned that the other had posted from additional accounts, although Royalty2012's accusation against me was followed up -- leading here -- whereas mine wasn't), one error in six years committed nearly half-a-year ago does not an ongoing "pattern of sockpuppetry" make worthy of a permanent ban, especially not in light of my history of years of productive and compliant editing, before and since. Doing so contravenes no punitive blocks & no outdated blocks since there's no evidence suggesting future misbehavior. In any event, as can readily be seen, PlayCuz is a seldom-used account, although created earlier, than is FactStraight which is used to edit almost daily, so why would FactStraight be indefinitely blocked instead of PlayCuz, the latter being an old account I have no problem refraining from any future use of? FactStraight (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

*RevDel'ed or deleted revisions on House of Dlamini show no evidence of any edits by either account around August 2013. In fact, the only edits between March and November 2013 are entirely unrelated. (Unless some edits were oversighted but that's normally never the case for copyvios). In fact, reviewing the history: PlayCuz editws infrequently up to July 17th, 2009. Your next edit came on November 18th, 2010 under FactStraight. You went back to editing with PlayCuz on June 19th, 2011, then back to FactStraight from April 25th, 2012 through to May 2012, until this January when you edited and edit-warred first under PlayCuz, then FactStraight. While the back-and-forth was quite distant in time, it directly contradicts your assertion that there was one accidental mistake last year and casts doubts on your ability and justification for using two accounts. The simplest course of action now is to stick to using a single account for all your editing once your block expires. If it is simpler for you, I have no objections to, once the other block is expired, indef PlayCuz and unblock FactStraight (because I think you should have a right to choose which of the two accounts you'd prefer to continue using.) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  01:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Unblock[edit]

(Copied from User talk:Salvidrim!)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

FactStraight (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Please re-activate my User:FactStraight account and its history, as discussed since that has always been my primary and heavily used account, as the user histories of both accounts document. The fact that PlayCuz is older is far less important than the fact that it has never been heavily used, whereas until recently, FactStraight was used daily. If this can only be done by blocking the PlayCuz account, that is acceptable. Thank you. PlayCuz (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As I initially proposed, I have no objections to this. Unblocking User:FactStraight as the master account and indefinitely blocking User:PlayCuz as a confirmed sockpuppet account. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.


Royal Intermarriage[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you've made a couple of edits to the Royal intermarriage article. I've listed it for peer review (here) but haven't had any responses yet. It would be great if you could give some feedback if you have the time. I've spent a few hours trying to make the article less Eurocentric and improving the citations, so any notes would be a great help :) Thanks. Sotakeit (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet[edit]

Do you know if 68.109.175.166 is a sockpuppet of User:Jaqeli? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I was suspecting the same thing. That anon came out of nowhere, yet is clearly an experienced editor, is as impatient as Jaqeli and makes the same arguments as Jaqeli using some of the same phrases. FactStraight (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
See Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty of Kartli.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It is actually hilarious to see how this editor and User:Olivia Winfield edit. I have really strong suspicions it is User:Jaqeli covering his tracks. He even vote oppose on the request move on Princess Leonida so to make it seem unlike him yet let a little of Jaqeli slipped when he said "be it noble or royal is another discussion". Now he is talking to himself with this User:Olivia Winfield account. These are only suspicions. It would be more suspicious if he is reading this right now. I have no intention to pursue them but just wanted to tell you; it may help you handle him in the future. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

wallis simpson[edit]

The edit I did was actually correct. It is for that reason the Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon became H.R.H The Duchess of York on her wedding day.

stevie1972 82.132.212.31 (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FactStraight reported by User:Remus Octavian Mocanu (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Amedeo's wedding[edit]

The simple fact that there is no royal decree gazetted prior to a royal member's wedding excludes de jure (Art 85 alinea 2) the married member of the succession. Only the use of the heavy procedure in alinea 3 of Article 85 can restore the lost position. There hasn't just been yet any official enectement because Belgium undergoes the formation of a new government since last elections in May 2014. Things are just suspended on that fact but the conclusion is evident. — Mimich (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I am familiar with Article 85. Of course, as you know, Wikipedia may not itself apply Article 85 to Amedeo's marriage. We need reliable sources (preferably taken from the Belgian government's or Royal Family's website) to state that this is what has happened to Amedeo -- we cannot treat the consequences of Article 85 as automatic or as "evident". FactStraight (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That is why I was writing about "unofficial consideration" in the meanwhile. Never mind. It will come, I guess, with the new government. -Mimich (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zumbala[edit]

I have started a sockpuppet investigation of Zumbala based on their edits to List of current pretenders. Edward321 (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 16 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Princess Joséphine of Lorraine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |6= 6. [[Charles de Rohan, Prince of Rochefort|Charles de Rohan, prince de Rochefort]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)