Talk:House of Mukhrani

	Georgia (country) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Politics of Georgia (country)#Recent developments|turmoil in political partisanship]] The anchor (#Recent developments) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Dynastic princes

References on English Wikipedia to the House of Mukhrani, the senior branch of Georgia's former Bagrationi dynasty, as dynastic princes are being minimised by Jaqeli despite the fact that he asked and was told here that the standard English translation of Mukhranbatoni is "Prince of Mukhrani". Jaqeli and I disagree about the dynasticity of the Mukhrani in Georgia, which is why instead of substituting "dynast" for "nobleman" as I think it should be, I've compromised, restoring NPOV by simply omitting "nobleman" and leaving "Georgian" -- a term on which we both agree. FactStraight (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Dear @Olivia Winfield:, 68.109.175.166, or whoever you are. First off, please don't accuse me of stalking as both articles are written by me and remain on my watchlist. Second, can you please explain what you actually want? You keep inserting cn tags for the statements which are already sourced. Also, you may have noticed that I removed the contentious opening definition of the family as "princely" because the family produced both royal and non-royal branches. If you have anything to discuss please to do it here. You hectic edit summaries, incessant edit-warring behavior and refusal to engage in meaningful discussion are not helpful at all and will inevitably lead to sanctions. --Kober^Talk 07:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not written entirely by you- what an ego! Removing cited work when you cannot provide anything else is vandalism- I accuse you. Perhaps you are a sockpuppet. Anything you wish to discuss you can do on the talk page of the article- how dare you presume to tell me what to do? Your hectic edit summaries, incessant edit-warring behavior and refusal to engage in meaningful discussion are not helpful at all and will inevitably lead to sanctions. Stop stalking me please. Thanks!Olivia Winfield (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all you have to say? I'm closing my eyes on your unjustified accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry this time. Can you please explain what changes do you want to be made in the article and what is rationale for you massive [cn] tagging? --Kober^Talk 07:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's enough- yes I do. Close your eyes all you want- the accusations stand. Provide citations for your work or allow others to do do- this is supposed to be an encyclopedia after all. Removing citations and cited work is vandalism-pure and simple.Olivia Winfield (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to repeat myself. Can you please explain what changes do you want to be made in the article and what is rationale for you massive [cn] tagging? --Kober^Talk 07:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivia Winfield: Please tone your voice down. Kober is one of the most experienced, professional and neutral editor on Wiki and I'd suggest you to change your attitude. If you see any problems into the article which may well be please first discuss and explain in concrete what you want exactly. Jaqeli 10:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC) @Jaqeli: Don't ever tell me what to do. I have been accused of being your sockpuppet already so I suggest you worry about that. You have caused so many problems that anyone who might agree with you is accused. Thanks a lot.Olivia Winfield (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia, please stop abusing the tags. The information provided in the article is sourced and verifiable. What do you actually want? sources for the fact that the Mukhranians were in possession of Mukhrani? --Kober^Talk 07:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. FactStraight (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on House of Mukhrani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research; no Latin motto in the coat of arms

The coat of arms with a Latin motto is absolutely fictional. Wikipedia:No original research

No Georgian noble or royal family had Latin motto in the coat of arms. 2600:4040:9CFA:A800:4475:BEA1:4D29:46B8 (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]