User talk:Pevernagie

"There is no need to insult me,that first,"

Cool but where ? Sir Lothar (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• The remark about the intelligence of the Dutch people, while I am not Dutch, it was clear the remark was intended for me. And we handled this matter back in January. Pevernagie (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

James Bobin

Hi, Pevernagie! I didn't notice that I had been logged out when I did that edit to James Bobin. My intention was to move that information to Fran Beauman, an article that's hyperlinked from James Bobin anyway. I've restored my edit, hope you agree that that information belongs better there. If you disagree, I won't revert anymore, it's no big deal for me. As you see, there's no biography of Bobin on Fran's page, either. Sunnan (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV report for 96.242.20.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi, I've now blocked the user. When warning users for inserting false information (as opposed to straightforward vandalism), use the {{uw-error}} templates - it makes it much clearer what the problem is, and makes my job much easier! Good work spotting that it was false, though. Best, – Toon^(talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

To Pevernagie:

I have just found the message regarding my edit, which was regarded as not constructive. I have replaced them along with the valid links. How are they not constructive to the Last Airbender Page when those posts can be cited from Paramount Studio employees? There is a question regarding the production of the film and I have added data regarding the controversy.

How is that not relevant to the page?

Sphinxian247 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Sphinxian247

The casting call is not something you put on Wikipedia. And you use a lot of uppercase. Pevernagie (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Warnings

Please look at how many warnings a user has before placing a new one. You just gave someone a level 1 warning after he had already received 4 warnings. Ridernyc (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In my defense, I didn't see the first three because of the speedy deletion tag :-) . Pevernagie (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Lilian baels.png

Thanks for uploading File:Lilian baels.png. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Several months ago, you went through the effort of saying an edit I had made to the Billy Joel entry "did not appear to be constructive", and then used the rather powerful word "vandalism" to describe an edit I made to the Power trio entry. In both instances, you suggested I use the sandbox for experimenting, which "does not appear to be constructive" to me, since I was not experimenting, I was making legitimate edits. Needless to say, you reverted both edits. To be honest, I don't remember any more what these horrible things I did were, and I would genuinely like you to remind me, because I honestly don't recall ever having written anything "unconstructive", let alone so malicious as to be labelled "vandalism", in Wikipedia. I simply don't remember what it was that could have offended your sensibilities so much, because I've got nothing but respect for Wikipedia and my intent in making edits is always only to expand the body of knowledge available to humanity. So, if it's not too much to ask, would you be so kind as to let me know what it was that I wrote in these edits that you considered to be unconstructive and even vandalism? Perhaps I can then rewrite them in a way that manages to contribute to the general body of knowledge while at the same time meeting your stringent criteria for "appearing to be constructive". Thank you. 208.80.97.117 (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the changes you mention, and I reverted Power trio because you removed quite a lot of material from the page without discussing it on the talk page; as for Billy Joel, in hindsight perhaps a "please provide source material" would have been better placed. Pevernagie (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Princess Charlotte

Not that my blog was receiving all that many hits from the article that I linked to Princess Charlotte's death, but did you read the article before deleting it? It was not a collection of links, but a fully written post that was researched, footnoted and quoted. In addition, please note that other contributors to Wikipedia have linked to my blog, asking me for permission first, which I always give. Yes it is my blog, but I linked this particular article because it had something to add about how her death influenced obstetrics. This discussion does not belong in the main body of the article about Princess Charlotte. What I wrote was extremely specific and I linked to the post only. Regarding a discussion, I have found that questions I pose are not being answered and I consider the exercise to be futile. Vsanborn (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are a recognized authority it's against policy. That others have linked to your blog in the past only shows that they lack a clear understanding of the guidelines for external links. Pevernagie (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ccw223

I see you've also reverted this editor today. FYI, I have reported this person at WP:AIV. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, that's why I had a look at his/her edits, but you should not have reported him/her (yet), he/she only made three edits this month, the edits he/she made on 25 May are not recent enough to be taken into account as well. If he/she vandalizes other pages just give the user a 3rd and then 4th warning, after which you can report him/her again. Pevernagie (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed one of the admins felt his behavior in the past was serious enough to block him indefinitely, so that chapter is closed. Pevernagie (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

Pevernagie, an article I recently created, Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, has been nominated for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Please take the time to weigh in and stop its deletion. Thanks again for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia! Caponer (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza

Hello Pevernagie! I know this is a controversial subject, but the information that I published yesterday on Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza article is verifiable on:

• Jean Pailler; Maria Pia of Braganza: The Pretender. New York: ProjectedLetters, 2006.
• Jean Pailler; Maria Pia: A Mulher que Queria Ser Rainha de Portugal. Lisbon: Bertrand, 2006, pp. 17.

Remember that Jean Pailler is the same author of the biography of King Charles I of Portugal. Thank you. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nukes

The section of Pokhran is about reaction to india not Pakistan 86.156.211.170 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The section details how Pakistan reacted. Pevernagie (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

About your edit ... Winning an online cyber game does not make you famous..

World Cyber Games had 78 countries listed as participants last year, and I think you need to revise your position on this subject, eSport is taking a lot more space lately, and the World Cyber Games is one of the biggest worldwide organsation of tournaments, with extensive media coverage. I may be biased because I am a part of the organisation of the Canadian Division, however I do believe that being an accomplished cyberathlete counts as being famous and an upstanding member of the community. Anyhow I will let you decide what to do with that edit.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.210.117 (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

But does that make it notable enough to be mentioned on wikipedia pages not directly related to the subject itself? I think it is best to restrict the "famous people" heading to people who are notable enough to get their own page, otherwise everyone who had their five minutes of fame is going to want to be included. Pevernagie (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou

Thanks for the message, but I wanted to comment to you points that they are not clear for me. The discussion about the title is due to a former commentary in which there is speculated that the title of king of Jerusalem emerges separated from the honors and royal Spanish titles [1], nevertheless such approach is fruit of WP:OR, since there is no reference that this title was separated from the rest honorific titles of the king of Spain, since the title of king of Jerusalem is simply an honorific title and not that of a separated realm [2].

As indicates your summary to the reversion in the article Spanish king is not the only claimant: if we take the legitimist line of the French Bourbons, these kings bore the title of king of France and Navarre, but not that of Jerusalem, wherefrom does this title come?, The only French king that I know as king of Jerusalem is Louis XII, and he was such simply for becoming king of Naples.

Therefore in agreement to WP:PROVEIT (burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material [...] Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed), you must prove that such pretension exists or it existed dynastically in the French legitimism. Nevertheless, it does not serve for it this page Kings of Jerusalem#Potential claimants today, as it is indicated in WP:CIRCULAR-WP:SOURCES-Wikipedia:Reliable source examples-WP:REFB: Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, as this would result in a self-reference (Wikipedia citing itself) - Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources.

With what, in absence of sources the fact that the duke of Anjou is claimant to the kingship of Jerusalem is simply a hoax, and such expression has the same validity as if he said that he is a claimant to throne of Japan. Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If the claims of Louis Alphonse come from the Spanish line, then you have a point. Based on the edit summary it appeared as if you were deleting it because you considered Juan Carlos to be the claimant, my bad. Pevernagie (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

german pretender

Waarom zijt gij zo bang om onze koning te verliezen aan ons moderrijk? Wij zijn wel degelijk Neder-Duitsers en geen Franzosen, zoals zoveel in België denken. Dus Albert II is als Wettin wel degelijk een pretendent. I-are-baboon (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC).