User talk:Yopie

Thanks Yopie

Hi, I am Guilatshalit, and I wanna say Thank you Yopie for your comments, I hope to improve my articles and keep on editing wikipedia, thanks for your advice , now I will preview my articles before I edit , thank you so much.

czech prime ministers

I have another source that podivinsky is member of kdu-csl http://kducsl.cz/getmedia/966f7a80-58e6-4095-a70a-cc889e1435a0/KDU-CSL---KL-PSP2013-MSL.pdf.aspx note that candidate number 8 is clearly marked as independent.

Hungary and the Austrian Empire

Hello User:Yopie, User:KIENGIR is trying, without consensus, to reintroduce text to the Austrian Empire article. That text was removed in May after discussion on several talkpages (most notably on the talkpage of Ausgleich). The text is internally contradictive and verification of the sources failed. The sources either said the exact opposite of what was mentioned in the text, or were about another period than the article is about, namely the period before 1804, while the article is about the period after 1804. Furthermore, that text was originally introduced by sockpuppets (unbeknownst to me at the time) See: [1]. I have therefore reverted evoking WP:DENY. Is that right? I’m letting you know because, I seem to remember you were involved in this back in May, perhaps via the Ausgleich article. I have reverted for now but perhaps you can take a look at the situation. Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Servus v. Hebel, I will take a look at it. You are right, consensus is that Hungary was integral part of the Empire. I met with Stubes before and know him.--Yopie (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I see now that my memory of you being somehow related to all of this, was via the Stubes matter. Not that I'm saying that KIENGIR = Stubes, but the original author of the text involved was... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys,

I will wait but I ask you Yopie to carefully read all the discussion in both of the articles. I repeat I don't see any consensus, but in any case it was reached, it is totally improper, since Hungary never was "the integral part of the Empire", it has to be immediately revised! Not any consensus can get through historical facts, the good faith should lead and to highlight such information that is fully complies with the historical facts. Read also my proposition as a consensus to Hebel. Thanks (Hebel, what you did is not "canvassing" now? Anyway it does not bother me, since the facts should decide, not the number of people. I just tell you, the person accused me and informed you about "canvassing" seem to have an anti-Hungarian attitude, he reverted one of my edit in an other page but shortly after, he corrected himself, but he noted "he hopes now the Hungarian nationalists are happy"..although it was also a FACTUAL edit - the case can be similar but it has a long history - and not anymore that factuality can be disputed!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You can read WP:Canvas to see what is and what is not appropriate. Asking an involved admin to take a look is allowed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hebel, don't play with us again, I read and know what is canvassing, I did NOT influenced other's opinion or any outcome, I urged expert and experienced collegaues who have their own opinion! Travisrade set you up!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza and King Charles I of Portugal

There are here more sources about the the parental relationship between King Charles I of Portugal and Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza:

Maria Pia of Braganza is presented in the family tree of King Charles I of Portugal by the renowned historian A. H. de Oliveira Marques in his book História de Portugal - Volume III published in Lisbon, 1982.
Maria Pia of Braganza was cited as Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Bragança 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).
Maria Pia of Braganza was cited as the Princess Maria Pia in HILTON, Ronald; Hispanic American Report (Volume 10), page 576, published by the Stanford University, Department of Hispanic American Studies, in 1957.
Maria Pia's life and parental relationship with King Charles was presented in a popular biography of Jean Pailler published under the title Maria Pia: A Mulher que Queria Ser Rainha de Portugal (The Pretender: Maria Pia, the would-be queen of Portugal), published by Bertrand Editora in Lisbon, 2006.
Maria Pia's case was studied and presented openly by the famous Portuguese lawyer Francisco de Sousa Tavares and published under the title O caso de Maria Pia de Bragança (13 de maio de 1983) (The Maria Pia of Braganza's case), in Escritos Políticos I, by Mário Figuerinhas, pages 246–251, in Oporto, 1996.
The author Isabel Lencastre published a literary work resulting from a study done to all the bastards of the Portuguese royalty and devoted an entire chapter to the case of Maria Pia of Braganza. The book is Bastardos Reais - Os Filhos Ilegítimos dos Reis de Portugal. Lisboa: Oficina do Livro, 2012, pages 211-223.

Thank you for your attention. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no consensus about adding this matter to the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are now published many sources and references. That's what Wikipedia needs, not only mere opinions from people who insist on their lack of neutrality... Anjo-sozinho (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also don’t see you quoting (chapter and verse) where any of these authors explicitly and clearly assert that this lady is indeed Carlos’ daughter and what their evidence or even proof for that is. You also still have no consensus for adding this information to the article regardless.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yopie, I have opened a thread about these matters at WP:ANI. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

propaganda?!!

Excuse,, I am writing to ask you the reason why she has deleted my intention to place a descendant of the family members of ESTE?--82.52.35.155 (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because this was blatant and fraudulent hoax. Ercole III d'Este, Duke of Modena had only one legitimate issue, Maria Beatrice d'Este, Duchess of Massa.--Yopie (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your justifiable revert

Hi Yopie, I wanted to give you some background on my edit that you reverted here.

I made that edit on the basis of an OTRS ticket initiated by Staneala Beckley, asking why she isn't listed on that page. She can confirm that she has the award in email.

The problem here is, there isn't really any centralized source that lists the award recipients. Many other entries in that article also have no citation. Therefore, I thought it would do no harm to add one more, and at least "cite" linkedin in the comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you, but Linkedin is not reliable source. And I' m afraid, that because she doesnt have her own article, she is not notable for including in the list of notable recipients. This OTRS ticket looks like a WP:Self-promotion. If she is notable, there must be some articles in reliable newspapers about her and the award and this problem can be solved. I hope you understand my opinion. --Yopie (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and I explained to her in my reply in OTRS that someone might come along and remove the entry. So, should we remove the other unsourced entries that have no articles? See for example Israel, Lebanon, and the United States, and others that are red-linked (or non-linked) with no source. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we shall remove these entries.--Yopie (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crown (heraldry)

Hi Yopie! Long time, no see. I'm just back from a long hiatus, but I remember working with you in the past, I assume on some heraldry-related articles. I hope we can work well together again. I just wanted to say hi and let you know that I really don't mean to come across as uncaring about the work someone did adding a TON of images to the crown (heraldry) article, but I made a selective deletion of non-prose content on the basis of Wikipedia's content policy. The thing is, Wikipedia isn't meant to be a gallery of images. That's what Commons is for. I wish we could have had this discussion a year ago, before a bunch more stuff got added in, but I was busy with other things off-wiki. I hope the new year has found you in good health, peace and prosperity. Cheers! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]