User talk:Hebel: Difference between revisions

Please stop modifying the edits made on those various Slavic pages. West Slavic is not merely linguistic differences, it is cultural too as well, hence why they are branches. Ukrainian culture is not similar to Polish culture. Ukrainians are Eastern Slavic and practice Orthodoxy, Polish are Western Slavic and practice Roman Catholicism. You seem to be fixated with these Slavic pages, tell me why? You are not even Slavic, you are from the Netherlands so how could you possibly know? I am of Polish and Croat origin, I know far more in this subject manner more than you ever will. Stop changing these articles or face actions from a moderator.

User:130.156.22.254 Watch your talkpage. We follow academic sources on Wikipedia. Even if editors don't agree. Blogs are not academic sources. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying "we" when it is merely just you. And there are no academic sources that you have provided that state the Ukrainian culture is similar to Poland, therefore rendering it useless and removed. Ukrainian is an Eastern Slavic culture closely related linguistically and genetically to other fellow Eastern Slavs such as Belarusians and Russians. Polish is a Western Slavic language and culture with linguistic, cultural, and genetic ties to Slovakia and the Czech Republic. You stated that the only differences are linguistic, that is FALSE. Seems as if you do not know Slavic culture (How possibly could you? You're a Netherlander).

I don't know who this nutjob ^ is who is posting the "you DO have to be a chicken to judge an egg" but that's just nationalistic poppycock. We use Reliable Sources for Wiki, not pseudo-patriotic blogs that any podunk editor can publish. Oh, sorry, I see that Ed blocked this IP for disruptive editing. Carry on. :-) 68.19.0.143 (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sabah

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sabah. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Episcopal Church

Actually, your edit is the POV statement. To say that the Episcopal church "maintains" apostolic succession states a point of view. So I changed to "claims to maintain," which is a true statement, and I provided a citation to Pope Leo XIII's document, disputing the claim. Further, the bald statement that a church maintains apostolic succession is not subject to verification, because, to my knowledge, no one has ever produced a complete list of bishops, beginning with the Apostles, and continuing in an unbroken line to the present. If you are aware of such a source, I would be interested in having a citation to it.John Paul Parks (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:John Paul Parks], basically you're right. But I wouldn't take Leo XIII's word for it, since that would suggest that the RC church does maintain and other churches don't because he says so. I'll restore your text, but not the source given. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:YouTube

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:YouTube. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Tamils

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tamils. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism at Ukrainians

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ukrainians, you may be blocked from editing. Your section-blanking, and subsequent repeated re-insertion of false information, accompanied by the removal of the cited correct information, constitutes vandalism. Your vandalism has already persisted to the point that I will not give you any further warnings, but will now go directly to the administrators. Blucdgl (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Blucdgl, but I don't know what to think of this anymore, since everyone, not just you, keeps adding and removing information and changing his or her mind. It happened before on this and other (notably Belarussians) pages. There is a problem of trustworthiness with these sections on more pages. Wikipedia procedure is that you try to resolve the conflict on the talk page of the article and I haven't seen you there yet! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... and I must warn you about using templates about, and words like, vandalism.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:History of South America

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of South America. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Recoleta (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) 10:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:State of Palestine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State of Palestine. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Cayman Islands

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cayman Islands. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Potato chip

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Potato chip. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Potato chip

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Potato chip. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OFFICIAL LANGUAGE vs. OFFICIAL NAME IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

Hi, please check the recent edits between me and Yopie in the Austria-Hungary article. Yopie very unprofessionally reverted my edit, the details you are able to read...answer these questions and act if it's necessary:

1. Is it true that Czech and Polish were official languages of Austria-Hungary (it is possible only for the Austrian side of the Monarchy anyway)?

2. If some regional lanugages would be official, would it omit the officiality of the German langauge, moreover the German official names of the cities (as they were under Austrian administration)?

I think - and my recent edit shows this it a minimum that German names are official names, the question is if the Czech and Polish names can be also fairly put in this status..

Thanks (KIENGIR (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi KIENGIR, as far as I know Czech became co-official for internal matters only in Bohemia around the seventies or eighties of the 19th century. About the same goes for Polish in Galicia, where it became a co official in a somewhat more broader sense. I'll look into it. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, please give a feedback on your result and confirm if in the contemporary official name section in the Austrian side the Czech and Polish names next to the German are properly put or not (I still assume that any-kind of level of an official language does not necessarily override the OFFICIAL NAME of a city, so my primary assumption is still that only the German names should be put in the contemporary official name section....the official langauges are a different story or category)(KIENGIR (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Erfurt massacre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erfurt massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Constitution of Medina

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Constitution of Medina. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Can you please explain why you insist on adding an edit which includes a source recognized as unreliable since 2005 (see the talk page)? Everything was fine until an ultra-nationalist added this unreliable source again. Why do you support it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:B410:5700:E5:BD2B:70B7:BE19 (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insult or call other editors negative terms. I just spoke to you about your use of edit summaries and you seemed to understand. Then you immediately come here and call someone "an ultra-nationalist". Your comments are not collaborative and do not seek to achieve consensus. Please practice civility, or I'm afraid you will be blocked from editing (which obviously you don't want). :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, i don't mean this user!! I mean the user "Judist" who started this on 20th of May, see history section! If you take a look on his contributions you'll see he is an ultra-nationalist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:B410:5700:E5:BD2B:70B7:BE19 (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listen carefully. I will say this only once. This and other articles that have a relation to the Greek Macedonian conflict have recently been infested by edits that are not sourced, by editors that don't do the work required and flatly refuse to discuss. If your edit is reverted and you are asked to take your case to the talkpage, you do just that. If you have a source that would justify your edit you take it to the article or the talkpage. Other editors won't do the work for you. Section blanking is generally regarded as vandalism and immediately reverted. I will treat it as such. There is also a suspicion regarding sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry in this matter, which has been reported. Take your case to the talkpage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP created a thread about you on WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. shoy (reactions) 16:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 13:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.175.240 (talk)

Your edit and possible bias on Kingdom of Hungary

Hello, you seem to have undid my contribution to the page Kingdom of Hungary by removing Polish from the list of "other languages" spoken. You then told me that I had no source, meanwhile the other languages listed as spoken have no source themselves. Please do not be biased and hypocritical. The Kingdom of Hungary covered a portion of territory that is now modern day Poland. Poland and Hungary have had very close ties during the long history of Central Europe, for example the Congress of Visegrád summits around the same time as the kingdom. There is and was no absolute reason for you to remove Polish from the list of other languages spoken. Thank you. 69.119.175.240 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)69.119.175.240[reply]

The IP attack

Hello, sir. Your help with the vandalism of the 99 and 199 Harry's IP is appreciated. He is unstoppable, probably the pages targeted by these should be semi-protected. Judist (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Judist, Thanks, I've made a sockpuppet report on the matter here. I suppose we'll soon hear more about that. Targeting statistics on pages on ethnic groups is a widespread problem somehow... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Chris Kyle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chris Kyle. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Romay-Habsburg"

Hey Hebel,

Thanks for the ping on my talk. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, I haven't been online much recently, but I'm glad the "Romay-Habsburg" situation solved itself. Hope all is well with you friend!

Best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Falklands War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Falklands War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit waring and 3rr violation

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your POV

Please stop your POV with your article revertions. You just want to cover up the real information about the History of Portugal and you constantly give titles of fantasy to the Miguelist pretenders. Just to remember one of the most relevant fact from the History of Portugal: the Portuguese Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 (and never revoked) in article 98 categorically states as follows: "The collateral line of the ex-infant Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". Also Queen Maria II of Portugal and Portuguese Cortes declared King Miguel without his royal status and also declared him, and all of his descendants, forever ineligible to succeed to the Portuguese crown and forbade them, under death pennalty, to return to Portugal. This decision was supported by the Portuguese Republic. It's important to everyone here in Wikipedia remember this historical fact. Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio «of Braganza» are JUST pretenders. Please, replace the correct information. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should learn to support your assertions with reliable sources. You should also learn to understand that POV is not the same as disagreeing with your project of WP:rightgreatwrongs. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should also note that article 98 you talked about earlier WAS INDEED REVOKED. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made Miguelist promotion and now it's clear to see that. And you call "Prince" and "Duke" to someone that is just a pretender... have you neutrality? No. But you are happy publishing false information after claiming neutrality to the other pretendants articles... OMG! Please... Now, in Portugal, anyone takes as serious the Miguelist pretenders because they only spread false information as you are doing here. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you continue to publish false information and erase the true information only to promote the pretenders from Miguelist line. You should be ashamed! Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you continue deleting referenced information... Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to affirm that Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza is not a bastard daughter of King Carlos I of Portugal? She is also cited as "Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Braganza" in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012). And she is cited by several historicians and authors as the real legitimated daughter of King Carlos. Read:

Humberto Delgado; Memórias (Colecção "Compasso do tempo"). Lisboa, 1974, pp. 233–234.
Manuel de Bettencourt e Galvão; Ao Serviço d'El-Rei (Cadernos Políticos), Lisboa: Gama, 1949, pp. 123–129.
A.H. de Oliveira Marques; História de Portugal - Vol. III'. Lisboa, 1982.
Jean Pailler; D. Carlos I Rei de Portugal. Lisboa: Bertrand Editora, 2000, pp. 158.
Jean Pailler; Maria Pia: A Mulher que Queria Ser Rainha de Portugal. Lisboa: Bertrand, 2006.
Jean Pailler; A tragédia da Rua do Arsenal. Lisboa: Editorial Planeta, 2009.
Mariano Robles Romero Robledo & José António Novais; Humberto Delgado : assassinato de um herói. Lisboa, 197-.
Fernando Luso Soares; Maria Pia, Duquesa de Bragança contra D. Duarte Pio, o senhor de Santar. Lisboa: Minerva, 1983.
Mário Soares; Portugal amordaçado: depoimento sobre os anos do fascismo. Lisboa: Arcádia, 1974, pp. 274–278.
Francisco de Sousa Tavares; O caso de Maria Pia de Bragança (13 de maio de 1983), in Escritos Políticos I, Porto, Mário Figuerinhas, 1996, pp. 246–251.
José María Zavala; La Infanta Republicana: Eulalia de Borbón, la oveja negra de la Dinastía. Madrid: Plaza & Janes, 2008.
José María Zavala; Bastardos y Borbones. Los hijos desconocidos de la dinastía. Madrid: Plaza & Janes, 2011.
Ronald H. Chilcote; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012, pp. 37.
Isabel Lencastre; Bastardos Reais - Os Filhos Ilegítimos Dos Reis De Portugal. Lisboa: Oficina do Livro, 2012.
Fernando Dacosta; O Botequim da Liberdade. Lisboa: Casa das Letras, 2013, pp. 176–177.

These sources are sufficiently varied to attest that this is not a simple assumption on the lady of parenthood. The article of Maria Pia of Braganza are quite vandalized and neutralized, so not even understand why they do not allow more issues to rectify what is missing. But what is not admitted is the amount of false titles attributed to Miguelist pretenders. They may be descendants of ancient kings (but it is also controversial), but what is factual is that those titles are not officially recognized in Portugal and they are still used and challenged by other famous throne pretenders. Your activity here in Wikipedia only promotes the absence of neutrality and the publication of false titles in favor of these people.

Miguel, Duke of Braganza (false title, he is just a pretender) should be renamed as his real name Miguel Januário de Bragança and used the correct Pretender/Infobox in his article;
Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza (false title, he is just a pretender) should be renamed to his real name Duarte Nuno de Bragança and used the correct Pretender/Infobox in his article;
Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza (false title, he is just a pretender) should be renamed to his real name Duarte Pio de Bragança and used the correct Pretender/Infobox in his article;
Isabel, Duchess of Braganza (false title, she is just a pretender) should be renamed to her real name Isabel de Herédia and used the correct Pretender/Infobox in her article;

Etc... Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.-S.

Hey Hebel,

Sorry to hear about all the trouble that Anjo is causing you. I commented on the admin talkboard and hopefully that will aid in your case. Reason, , and composure are on our side.

Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now Wikipedia already accept fantasy titles? We here in the false community Dukes of Bragança, false Princesses of Portugal... a real advertisement for Miguelist line... very "good" work, Cristiano Tomás and Gerard von Hebel. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I definitely understand your wanting to put that disclaimer there. Im just trying to enunciate it a bit better than just stating something that comes off as very obvious in my mind. look at this and tell me what you think.

Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Tomás, I think it's great what you wrote there. But I would leave out the Rosario Podimani section..... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying a consensus: Hello, I made a new neutral proposal, based on Cristiano Tomás version, to the article House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I hope now (both of you) accept that: it's neutral, based on the references and sustained in what Cristiano previously wrote. See here. I hope to hear from you soon. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're playing with my face? You are replacing fantasy titles as if they were true titles of royalty; you are eliminating all the Infobox/Pretender in Miguelist pretender articles (and tell that they are real members of royalty in a Republic); you are reverting all information just to promote lies and in a brazenly non-neutral way... and you dare to accuse me? I ask you to stop these attacks. We can not allow lies here. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is decided by all the people, not only by you and your non-neutral point of view. I based all my new editings in Cristiano editings and not changed the main sense of them. But you deleted all. What you are doing now is pure vandalism and you really don't want any consensus. It's false what you are publishing, so I will replace all information and propose to administration to analise your CLEAR act of vandalism in the articles about this subject. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hebel,

I was wondering if you think there's enough material to suggest a blocking of AS on the admin board. I really didn't want to come to that, but this issue keeps coming back and is diverting my attention from other articles I'd much rather be working on. Not to mention he acts against WP, consensus, takes personal stabs at people, and disrupts wiki stability. I think it would justified to prevent future possible disruptions and edit wars. Let me know what you think.

Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly understand how this is diverting your attention. I feel the same way, especially since it's always the exact same story that keeps repeating itself. And you should see my e-mailbox of the last few days. Interesting proposition and I think we have enough material if we make a dossier of incidents with diffs including edit summaries, and fragments of talk from us and others that have been dealing with this and of course the right wording from this side. Would we have to take such a document to WP:ANI? Or is there another venue you're thinking of? I'm willing to gather some material and make a document, but that will take some time. I'm not sure how it will be taken by the admins however, but we'll see won't we? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cristiano Tomás: You continue to agree attack me for silencing me, it's a shame. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anjo-sozinho, every pretender on Wikipedia get's called by his courtesy title. The Duke of Bavaria, The Prince of Prussia, at least two Dukes of Savoy that hate each other and about three Margraves of Meissen that also don't agree about the succession to the throne and yes indeed also the Duke of Braganza. We don't have to agree with that policy, but it is the policy and we follow it! Can't you see how that would NOT apply to a pretender who has no courtesy titles because she is an illegitimate child who's parentage is not proven? I can't make it any clearer than that. Also read up on Wikipedia etiquette and how we are not here to promote our pet causes but to write an encyclopedia. I don't think you understand that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza is cited as "Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Braganza" in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012) and as "...Her Royal Highness D. Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza, the Crown Princess of Portugal" in Jean Pailler; Maria Pia of Braganza: The Pretender. New York: ProjectedLetters, 2006. But there are more and more examples and you don't have any proof to tell that her claims are false. If you call "Dukes" to foreign persons (remember that the Portuguese Courts and Law banish all foreigns from the sucession line, even to President of the Republic role), Miguelists cannot be Dukes, or Princes, or Kings, in Portugal. They are born in Switzerland (Duarte Pio), in Austria-Hungary (Duarte Nuno), in Germany (Miguel Januário). Just Maria Pia of Braganza was born in Portugal and she was born at the time of last Portuguese Monarchy. That's the facts. If you used the same criteria for treatment in all articles of the pretenders in question (Miguelist and Saxe-Coburg) so I could even agree with you. But you don't... or you think to reconsider that? Anjo-sozinho (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Singapore

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Count of Valentinois

Hi! Your edits to the article Count of Valentinois popped up on my STiki feed. I see edit summary you made, but I'm not clear on why the excessive blanking was necessary. The article certainly needed to cleanup, but the "excessive detail" is puzzling. There was a lot of detail, yes, but it seemed relevant. I didn't want to revert it without checking in with you, though. Prof. Mc (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Prof. Mc. Basically it seems to be a contentious issue. Recently, big additions to the article were made. but unfortunately not by someone who writes any understandable English. It was probably translated from Spanish by an online translation machine. Perhaps it is a good idea to look at the material and decide what can be salvaged and translated into understandable English, but for the time being I don't think it should stand the way it was. Thanks for you message. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I looked back one or two edits, but not very many. Thanks for keeping an eye on that page. Prof. Mc (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Valentinois

It was very hard work without disturbing, destroying and look foolish? Congratulations and welcome to the group of good editors and historians. Now we just need to reference each part very well but mostly write the historical truth of everything.

Thank you. --Siredejoinville (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of metallurgy in South Asia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seamlessness (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) 10:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need of explanation

Please explain what do you mean in WP:deny in your revert? And why you didn't consider that issue is under active discussion and pointless and unsubstantiated reverts won't change situation. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstating material originally provided by a sock or banned user is denied. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not true policy and right thing. He made many good edits and they must not be reverted also in that revert is not only his edits but mine as well. Please read discussion here ►Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Question_about_blocked_editor and revert before controversial edits of LouisAragon --g. balaxaZe★ 16:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a reaction on that discussion page. Basically your edit was initially removed as it's text was originally added by block evasion. In that case you can't simply revert back to the original or almost the original text. You should really take it to the talk page if you want part of that edit or all of it to be restored. You could also make your own text on one or more of the matters involved, but it's safer to talk first, given the history of the situation. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as it seems I must to work for his "mistakes".--g. balaxaZe★ 17:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly so... It would also be wise policy to separate your own comment from his and not conflate them in one edit if possible. I'll take a further look at what text is yours and what text was earlier... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is not only in text but in files, I specially created some maps for the wiki and he removed them from the article with no single explanation representing them to public as sockpuppet revert. --g. balaxaZe★ 17:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard von Hebel You restored Aragon's reverts so I have to tell you more clearly that he said that he reverted sockpuppet's edits but those were not actual revert but manual and he reverted not only Damianmx's edits but my edits as well (I was remembering them) so I have a big doubt that he reverted other users edits with the same success, so please check all of 12,000+ bytes if you can. Considering my case it is already a fact that he removed not only blocked editors contribution (there must be some wiki policies about this).--g. balaxaZe★ 21:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Abkhazia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abkhazia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amedeo of Savoy head of the House

I'm Italian, I'm not a monarchist but I know perfectly that Amedeo is the head of the House. Here in Italy only the ignorant ones don't know that because of the gossip which follow too much Emanuele Filiberto. I put the website of Italian monarchists only for show something concrete. Jewels Jules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewels Jules (talk • contribs) 06:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jewels Jules, On Wikipedia we follow reliable sources, See WP:RS, not what we "perfectly know". Specially when we are dealing with contentious issues. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So i found the Umberto II's letters which were send to Vittorio Emanuele. They say that the head is Amedeo. That's the original translation: http://www.crocerealedisavoia.it/files/lettere/19630718_UIIaVE_en.pdf You said we need concrete sources, so, I think that's pretty concrete. In this letter he says "...what I wrote you in 1960...", in 1960 Umberto wrote him that he couldn't change the secular laws of succession of the house. The laws of succession of the house say esplicitally that sons who marry without the permission of the father, loose all their rights. Is that enaugh? Jewels Jules (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jewels Jules, there is presently (since 1946) no authority on earth that can settle this matter. Certainly not a website set up by monarchists of one or another persuasion, that is per definition not a reliable source. The only things we know is that Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples was the heir to the throne at the moment the monarchy ended, and that his claim is disputed by Amedeo. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hebel, now I have some doubts about your conoscence of the events. In 1960 the famous italian gossip magazine "Chi" interview Vittorio Emanuele, who sayed he wanted to marry. Umberto read it and sayed to his son the house's laws of succession, Vittorio Emanuele decided to don't marry. In '66 another interwiew sayed that Vittorio Emanuele wanted marry with a non noble women. Umberto asked again and Vittorio Emanuele sayed was all invented. For marry without loose rights he made himself "Vittorio Emanuele IV of Italy" and with a "royal decrete" cancelled the law and, at finally he married. Umberto disapproved that and the succession passed to Amedeo. VIttorio Emanuele and Amedeo fought in tribunal for the use of the suriname "di Savoia", won Amedeo. And, according to me, can be a person who evades taxes, sell arms, have killed a person to be the king of a nation? I don't think. Jewels Jules.

Please comment on Talk:Hunter Valley wine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hunter Valley wine. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Dutch Lion

I can finish the job for you. I didn't touch it for upwards of a week, but when nobody did anything to the category I assumed the change was accepted and went forward. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be dealt with now. I've moved the category back also - see Category:Recipients of the Order of the Dutch Lion.

As for Cat-a-Lot, you can have access to it, too - all you need to do is get the script. Hang on a sec and I'll see if I can remember where I got it - it's been a little while. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK - it's here: User:קיפודנחש/cat-a-lot.js. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much >User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao! I did a few manually... Does this mean the sub categories can be renamed back too? Because basically, the categories with "Dutch Lion" should disappear and be replaced by "Netherlands Lion". I'm afraid I'm no good at this stuff.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 339: / Line 339: @@
 That's the original translation: http://www.crocerealedisavoia.it/files/lettere/19630718_UIIaVE_en.pdf You said we need concrete sources, so, I think that's pretty concrete. In this letter he says "...what I wrote you in 1960...", in 1960 Umberto wrote him that he couldn't change the secular laws of succession of the house. The laws of succession of the house say esplicitally that sons who marry without the permission of the father, loose all their rights. Is that enaugh? [[User:Jewels Jules|Jewels Jules]] ([[User talk:Jewels Jules|talk]]) 21:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 :[[User:Jewels Jules|Jewels Jules]], there is presently (since 1946) no authority on earth that can settle this matter. Certainly not a website set up by monarchists of one or another persuasion, that is per definition not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. The only things we know is that [[Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples]] was the heir to the throne at the moment the monarchy ended, and that his claim is disputed by Amedeo. [[User:Hebel|Gerard von Hebel]] ([[User talk:Hebel#top|talk]]) 22:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
+Dear Hebel, now I have some doubts about your conoscence of the events. In 1960 the famous italian gossip magazine "Chi" interview Vittorio Emanuele, who sayed he wanted to marry. Umberto read it and sayed to his son the house's laws of succession, Vittorio Emanuele decided to don't marry. In '66 another interwiew sayed that Vittorio Emanuele wanted marry with a non noble women. Umberto asked again and Vittorio Emanuele sayed was all invented. For marry without loose rights he made himself "''Vittorio Emanuele IV of Italy''" and with a "royal decrete" cancelled the law and, at finally he married. Umberto disapproved that and the succession passed to Amedeo. VIttorio Emanuele and Amedeo fought in tribunal for the use of the suriname "di Savoia", won Amedeo. And, according to me, can be a person who evades taxes, sell arms, have killed a person to be the king of a nation? I don't think. Jewels Jules.
 == Please comment on [[Talk:Hunter Valley wine#rfc_A91FD30|Talk:Hunter Valley wine]] ==