User talk:Surtsicna

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

Hello, Surtsicna, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Succession box in the Princess Madeleine[edit]

Grace[edit]

I never know how to describe Grace and her husband. In situations where she is obviously an actress, I've had her as Kelly, but in royal situations I've had her as Princess. What do you think? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I too often wonder which way would be better and usually find that a combination of both, if possible, works best. If, for example, she is mentioned two (or more) times in a paragraph, and identified as wife of Prince Rainier, we can refer to her as Grace Kelly in the first instance and as Princess Grace in the second. The same usually applies to other deceased consorts. Surtsicna (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Very smart, thank you. Did you see this ridiculously obscure thing? I balanced it all quite well here I think! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
No, you've done a good job hiding it! :D Why did you not nominate it for DYK? Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I forgot, then it expired! It should probably pass an GA now, seeing as I found everything on it. Jackie's film is still up for grabs. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Matilda of Tuscany[edit]

Hi Surtsicna! thanks a lot for your help in the correction of the article, I'm still working on it, but when one is in hurry, this caused some problems....sorry about that and thanks again! Aldebaran69 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, don't apologize for working on an article to improve it! :) Surtsicna (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

noble ladies
Thank you for quality articles on people of European nobility, especially women such as Beatrice of Falkenburg, maintaining articles of the topic, removing trivia, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A year Two years ago, you were the 464th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Was that not two years ago? Time flies when you're in good company, but I remember the prize very well :) Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You are right! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

State/entity or whatever[edit]

Both are federal units. The wording is different, but materially, those are the same things. Entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina have more powers than the states of Germany, but in Bosnian case, the sensitive wording was used. Regardless, both can be described as federal units, and, therefore, both are equally important. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to such an opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I would ask you for an explanation - what do you mean by "personal fantasies"? Again, I cannot see why you keep reverting this edit. Like in San Diego, in the first paragraph of the lead, the US wasn't mentioned at all, only California (a federal unit) was mentioned. Similarly, I used the same mantra in Gacko. If you look at other articles, you'll notice that wording goes from lower to a higher level, therefore, in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina it would be: 1) municipality, 2) canton, 3) entity and 4) country. Look at other articles, New York or Edinburgh, needles to say, even though the UK is an unitary, and not a federal state, Scotland came before the United Kingdom. See it as a principle of subsidiarity. I would also ask you to continue discussion. It's not my opinion, but a fact. You would deny that Bosnia-Herzegovina is a federal state composed of federal units (states)? --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
By "personal fantasies", I mean wildly misleading or outright inaccurate claims or phrasing behind which stands an agenda rather than a resolution to achieve neutrality and factual accuracy – quite comparable to a certain user's crusade against the Cyrillic alphabet. If I look at the article about Geneva, for example, I will see the country mentioned first, followed by the historic region and only then (in the third sentence) the canton. It is your opinion that Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of two (or do you imagine more?) states; there is nothing indisputably factual about it. Our article about Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as our article on federal republic, does not mention any "member states" (a term you appear so eager to introduce for one reason or another) of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A federal republic can be composed of various types of subdivisions: states (eg. States of Brazil), provinces (eg. Provinces of Argentina), cantons (eg. Cantons of Switzerland), federal subjects (eg. Federal subjects of Russia), entities (Entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina), etc. So yes, I would indeed deny that Bosnia and Herzegovina is composed of states, much like I would deny that Russia is composed of cantons or that oranges are blue. Surtsicna (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No agenda at all, whatever your thoughts. I could claim you have "personal fantasies" on your own... and regarding a canton (federated state) "(which may be referred to as a state, a province, a canton, a Land, etc.) is a territorial and constitutional community forming part of a federal union (federation)", or any other federal unit, the article says, cantons are indeed states. The problem in Bosnia-Herzegovina is a sensitive language, because people get crazy of any mention of any sort of state. However, what is the reason for you reverting this edit, if not "hidden agenda"? It's pointless. Federal republics are composed of federal states, any political scientist will say so. You can call those states whatever you like... you can call them candies, it doesn't matter at all, it's just a form, what it matters is the content. Regardless. Another reason for doing this (moving the articles) was to make their linking more simple. For example, it would be easier for me to write say... [[Brod, Republika Srpska]], [[Bosnia and Herzegovina]], than [[Brod, Bosnia and Herzegovina|Brod]], [[Republika Srpska]], [[Bosnia and Herzegovina]]. Also, going from lower to a higher level is much more logical... Mentioning a small town, than the country, and only later the entity, canton etc, isn't so aesthetics. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
If you are going to argue that the milk is black and only appears to be white, I will be better off concentrating on something else. I have stated my reasons for reverting, have I not? Bosnia and Herzegovina is much more recognizable than Republika Srpska or Tuzla Canton. Wikipedia is written for the general public, most of whom will have a hard time placing Bosnia and Herzegovina on a map and none of whom will have any idea what or where Republika Srpska or Tuzla Canton is. You can still link to articles however it pleases you; there is nothing wrong with redirects. Surtsicna (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If I may jump in, seeing how user:FkpCascais jumped on me in defense of Yerevani on her talk page, this user has some exceptionally serious neutrality issues, and it's not a huge secret to which side she swings. I find it especially unsettling that the user in question does not even appear to appreciate the controversial nature of her edits. She just goes on a like a freight train in the middle of the night, seemingly surprised in a genuine way when questioned. In an arbitration involving user:Sabahudin9 the user vented her blatantly Serb nationalist views on the history of Bosnia and Bosniaks, reiterating the old story of how Bosnia is not a "real" country, Bosniaks not a "real" people, and the Bosnian language not a "real" language. Her contribution history is totally packed to the brim with evidence of her flagrant POV agenda, one [small taste thereof being this, an article which she also, not very surprisingly, but singlehandedly, moved from "Dubica, Bosnia and Herzegovina" to "Dubica, Republika Srpska". Examples are abound, such as removing the 1579 Ferhadija mosque from the Banja Luka article gallery, currently only featuring a Catholic and Orthodox church thanks to the lovely work of Yerevani (though reverted by me a few moments ago). 46.239.102.226 (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you hadn't jumped in. I am in no need of "saving" as I do not feel threatened or attacked by anyone or anything. In fact, the last thing I need now (and in general) is yet another extremist piling up nonsense on my talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Are you okay? I'm an extremist too? Sure you're okay? I don't know about you, but I sure don't fancy Yerevani spreading her POV junk around here with impunity, even having employed a bot to do so. But you know what, never mind. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a collaborative project based on feedback. I wasn't saving you. 46.239.102.226 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
What I don't fancy is you summoning other propagandists and advocates to my talk page. I will not have it become a battleground between those pushing one agenda and those pushing another. The intentions of both parties are perfectly clear to me. And yes, I feel perfectly fine, thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Rest assured that neither propagandism nor promotion is part of my ideology, objectivism is. I am not familiar with user Sabahudin9, my intention was to stimulate a discussion consisting of people that have been in contact with Yerevani's unquestionable, unambiguous, POV. And he, at least, seems not to have been the party at fault in his dispute with Yerevani. As a matter of fact, it was concluded by the independent observer that Yerevani was in fact pushing POV. I'm afraid that you're something of an annihilist, all are equally bad to you. How cynical. Like I said though, never mind. Luckily enough there's an abundance of editors willing to assist here. 46.239.102.226 (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, Surtscina. I'll open a moving discussion at some of the articles in question, and inform you when I do so, so we can discuss the issue at the right place. I won't be doing so in near future, and as far as I'm concerned, the articles may remain so for some time. Though, just to let you know, some of those articles were created with mentioning only RS, and were later redirected to mention only BiH. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"Anne, Princess Royal???"[edit]

That makes no sense. My reasoning makes perfect sense, however, and you should probably look things up before making reverts. In order to be simply "Anne, Princess Royal," she would have to have been a non-royal at birth who later got divorced from a royal prince titled "Prince Royal" (just like Diana and Sarah being simply "Diana, Princess of Wales" and "Sarah, Duchess of York," respectively, after their divorces. Neither of them were royal at birth so could not/cannot call themselves "Princess First Name"). Anne was royal at birth so did not lose "Princess" when she got divorced because it's hers in her own right. "Anne, Princess Royal" is just plain WRONG! Her name/title is: Princess Anne, The Princess Royal.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I came off like a defensive jerk and I apologise. My preceding message could have... (should have)... been worded with a lighter tone to it. However, having said that, "First name comma with no Princess in the beginning" is incorrect for a princess of the blood.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You did not seem like a defensive jerk to me. I must have dealt with so many stronger tones that I hardened up :) Anyway, the convention on Wikipedia is to use "Name, Title" for men and women alike, whether married or divorced. See WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Thus we have Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Charlene, Princess of Monaco, Stéphanie, Hereditary Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, etc; we also had Letizia, Princess of Asturias. The consensus is that Wikipedia is not bound by court protocol to use awkward article titles. Surtsicna (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I did not know that about wikipedia working around court protocol and such. I guess that does makes sense. Thanks.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyrillic names[edit]

Thanks very much for adding the Cyrillic name to Fort Trašte. Could you possibly do the same for the other Montenegrin fort articles that I've written? - Fort Gorazda, Fort Kosmač and Fort Vrmac. Prioryman (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I thank you for writing such detailed articles. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
They have an interesting history, and they were also interesting - if rather hazardous - to explore and photograph. Over here, old forts tend to be fenced off for health and safety reasons, so it's refreshing to have free rein to go exploring. Prioryman (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
What's refreshing to you is everyday life to me. I grew up in a city of ruins, too young to remember it as a tourist attraction it once was. Not sure about the health concerns, though - the remnants of museums, showy banks, pretentious malls and Moorish Revival hotels and schools built by Austria-Hungary appear to be perfect ground for urban flora and the ever welcome fig and pomegranate trees. (Dark humor, of course.) Excellent photographs, by the way! Surtsicna (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Philip of Majorca[edit]

Harrias talk 00:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bosnia and Herzegovina–Spain relations[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Bosnia and Herzegovina–Spain relations at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see new note on DYK nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)