User talk:FactStraight/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Every day every edit you make will be reversed. You are a vandal. You remove cited work from articles. There are too many of us for you to stop us. Be told! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.14.15.4 (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tfoxworth (talk · contribs)

Hi FactStraight. Just wanted to let you know that I have undone your recent edit to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, as that wasn't the right place to file the report. Next time Tfoxworth goes on a vandal spree, please report all IP addresses/usernames to WP:AIV, where they will be dealt with promptly. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with TFoxworth

Hey, I didn't realize how deep the problem went. Wow. I know very little about David Bagration of Mukhrani but I've become familiar with the pattern of vandalism that occurs and can keep the page relatively clean (and make it conform better to WP standards here and there). As for the other pages , I've edited a few of them and will try to add some to my daily patrols. Is there any way of dealing with this other than indefinite semi-protection? SQGibbon (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Get your facts straight!

The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty presently consists of over 40 members and contributors and seven board members and corporation officers. This includes some scholars and experts in the field of nobility and royalty. No one is paid. This is an association organized to benefit society with what we consider to be of great worth and value. They average about 15,000+ hits a day. (See their Public Monthly Newsletter) Outside objective auditors include the Better Business Bureau which has give them an A- rating, and they are master members of belong to the International Council of Online Professionals (i-Cop: The Seal of Integrity in Online Business).

When you say in the Talk articles on Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky and David Bagration of Mukhrani that the Commission is a one man operation, you are presenting a falsehood. If you are really committed to having you "facts straight" you should not misinform. An aquaintance will monitor and correct you or I will if each day if necessary, but we hope you have higher morals than to publish something which is clearly a misrepresentation of reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthHonesty (talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You're Not being neutral about this!

There you go again slamming instead of being neutral. What is it with you? You are breaking the wiki guidelines on this. Leave out the garbage. It is a misrepresentation and therefore unethical. Again, quoting directly from their website:

The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty presently consists of over 40 members and contributors and seven board members and corporation officers. This includes some scholars and experts in the field of nobility and royalty. No one is paid. This is an association organized to benefit society with what we consider to be of great worth and value. We average about 15,000+ hits a day. (See our "Public Newsletter") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.20.182 (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

I don't have the time, inclination or energy to fight. I have no interest in doing so. I just want to reconcile and move on. I propose that we both take down our recent words and let this go. Of course, I would not mind to have you show us all the mispellings and gramatical errors you can find, but it is not fair to ask that of you.

My email address is on the bottom of my entry, lets fix this. Please contact me. This is what Wiki's guideline would want of us, and it is what I want. Sincerely (TruthHonesty) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthHonesty (talk • contribs) 21:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobile

The 63.26.xxx IP has a history of hoax edits for articles related to Italian nobility. I'm not trying to enable the block evading sockpuppet vandal who was trying to copy your nick any more than you are trying to enable the block evading hoaxer sockpuppet. Thanks. Edward321 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiBirthday

I saw from here that it's been exactly two years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems with editor Fernande

Fact, there was recently a discussion in the talk page of article Gaston, comte d'Eu [1] about and editor called Fernandoe who insists on changing the meaning of sourced text although the source does not says what he writes. To be more clear, he insists on adding "surnames" to royals.[2] [3] The discussion, as you can see since you were also part of it, agreed that his editions do not make any sense. Worse: he did not bother to participate in it. I am tired of serving as nothing more as a watch dog reverting his edits. Something must be done about him and fast. --Lecen (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material in BLP

I don't mean to validate any banned users, but that Michael of Romania is on my watchlist. It's inappropriate to remove a good faith entry from the talk page. Unless you think you can find a source for the material I'll delete it again. Regardless of the banned user, unsourced negative remarks should not be kept in BLPs.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

NCROY archives

No idea what problem you saw with my edit at the older archives list; but anyway, all these old archives should be renamed so that they are subpages of the current talk page (so that the search button on the archive box works properly) - any objection?--Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Reverts on Nobility article

The reverts you are making on the Nobility article are beginning to seem like acts of an edit war. I am adding content supported by references which demonstrate the comments on the status of the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia to be a neutral point of view. They also are not peacock terms as they are supported by reliable and verifiable references. I would ask you to reconsider your reversionary actions. Editor8888 (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are POV because they do not add relevant factual information (let alone "demonstrate the comments on the status of the Stair Memorial Encyclpaedia" -- who confers "status" on an encyclopedia?), but puffery: they are being inappropriately used to buttress one side of an argument (the current validity of Innes' opinion as to what constitutes "nobility" in Scotland). Simply let the quote speak for itself, and people can look up Innes and Stair to decide for themselves their "authoritativeness". The contention that an encyclopedia may be cited in a legal case is meaningless and misleading because anything can be so cited -- and is then subject to rebuttal. Your claim that it is "authoritative" is not a declaration from either law or judge, but is an opinion intended to give the impression that Innes is authoritative because Stair reflects his POV, and that Stair has been cited judicially, so Innes is somehow authoritative on this particular point. Peacockery is inappropriate and will be deleted. It isn't somehow acceptable because it can be referenced: it is how the referenced material is used that determines whether it is deletable exaggeration. Stop mixing opinion and fact to promote a POV.FactStraight (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I would suggest you read this link. You will see that status is conferred on this encylopaedia by the Law Society of Scotland, through this official Scottish professional body's patronage of its production. Do not let the word 'encyclopaedia' confuse you; this is not simply one of any number of legal reference works, but is an authoritative statement of the Laws of Scotland. It is not cited in court as anyone may be and is not open to rebuttal. It would be necessary to demonstrate how and why it didn't apply. It is an authoritative statement of the law. If you are familiar with Halsbury's Statutes in England, you should know that Stair has the same status in Scotland. This is not opinion, but fact. Someone with expertise in this area would know this. The recent wording of the Nobility article was not neutral as it had been manipulated in a way to deny the present legal position as expounded in Scots law and to give undue emphasis to a single scholar who admits his opinions 'are far from definitive'. To accentuate this over the Laws of Scotland, where is the credibility in that? Editor8888 (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nobility. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Editor8888 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for peer review on article about Emperor Pedro II of Brazil.

Hi! If you have interest and time, could you take a look at Pedro II of Brazil and share some thoughts on what it is lacking to be nominated to Featured article? Here is the the peer review page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Pedro II of Brazil. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm

I am aware you do not like me for whatever reason but please have some compassion! I have worked hard on Mademoiselle and all information has been referenced, sourced and is the truth! I have slacked on the ref side of things but only recently learnt how to do it [lol]! Anyway, please just dont revert things it is so frustrating! A biography of a person includes all things even if they are about where they lived in exile, where they were born or who taught them! It is all factual! Please! I am very disappointed to be honest --LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again! I do not see what is wrong with Anne Marie d'Orléans, you have done nothing to improve the article in any way! I do not see what your problem is!? It is tiring Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The edits I made to the article improved it by eliminating redundancies, trivialities, poor grammar, poor organization, or information which properly belongs in the bios of other persons, exactly as explained each time in the edit summary of the article. Moreover, I added fact tags where you have inserted speculation: These entries must be properly cited to reliable sources or deleted, and you may not simply delete the tags, re-insert the speculations, and revert them whenever they are re-inserted. That is vandalism which I will report. Your refusal to address the specific requests for reliable sources or to respond to the talk page issues I raised about your insertion of redundancies and trivialities in the article leaves me no choice but to edit out these instances -- and your mocking, un-serious comments here are inappropriate in the serious work of editing an encyclopedia. FactStraight (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not being rude but why have you removed info such as where Anne Marie was buried and that she died of heart failure etc!? This is silly and very frustrating and seems to have something to do with you being in control!? What is your problem with me?! HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say to help you understand: For YEARS now I have pointed out to you on talk pages that you are including excessive TRIVIA in Wikipedia's bios on historical royalty and nobility. I have been extremely specific, on both the talk pages you've had under various IPs and on the talk pages of the articles, about what needs to be left out, so that you could see and make these corrections yourself. I have been patient so that you could make the edits. I have left a substantial portion of your trivia in the articles. I have nothing against you personally and think that you have made very valuable contributions to WP articles -- unfortunately, you persist in mixing in the valuable information with trivia -- and I do have a strong objection to trivia in an encyclopedia, particularly because many Wiki editors consider any biographical information about royalty/nobility to be trivial. Therefore, to protect and preserve the important facts and deeds in their biographies, a high standard of notability, relevance, and editorial selectivity is warranted. You have consistently ignored, mocked or attacked my concerns. Apparently you think that if you just ignore my input, I will stop attempting to maintain a high level of quality in royalty/nobility articles. Wrong. I hope that you will review the issues raised and contribute less trivia, redundancies, poor grammar, factual error and inappropriate tone to royalty articles. The Anne Marie d'Orleans article is now improved. More to come. FactStraight (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Category clutter? Please, are you being serious?! You are being unreasonable!!!!!! HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion at Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans

Hi! I suggest that you request a third opinion at Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans#Redundant & trivial content -- again by placing {{3O}}. That way LouisPhilippeCharles and you will resolve your differences sooner. The person to respond will be someone who has never read the article before and who has never interracted with either of you so it will be an honest, neutral opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles

Just to let you know, another user has filed a Wikiquette alert regarding a user, LouisPhilippeCharles, who you appear to be having issues with. Regards, WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 15:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles.

A full investigation has not yet taken place so there is probably a lot more to come out. He has been warned not to do it in future. If he does then it will almost certainly result in a block. But as I have no intention of keeping tabs on his movements (literally and metaphorically), it will be up to others to inform me and/or WP:ANI.

As regards blocking him for past errors of judgement, there is no advantage to the project in doing that. It is milk/blood already spilt and he may not have known that he was not to do it (assume good faith). If however he does it in future then that is another matter. -- PBS (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW that he has not offered to help clean up his mess can be pointed out at any future ANI and it will be taken as an indication of bad faith if he makes any more such cut and past moves again.

I noticed Moonriddengirl's posting here and I followed it. I agree with what she said about posting diffs, if you have some then I will follow up on them, but you must assume good faith until you can prove otherwise. -- PBS (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

How do you have only 1500+ edits?? Or is my Bowmore 15 stronger than what I thought?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for edit-warring on Anne Marie d'Orléans. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm

I do not mean to be rude, call me what you like but just stay off my talk page, it will benefit us both Adieu Monsieur le Duc (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, FactStraight. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anne Marie d'Orléans. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

Hello! I was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing Pedro II of Brazil and approve or not its nomination for good article (See: Talk:Pedro II of Brazil/GA1). Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Community reassessment of Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier

Hello, just to let you know a Community Good Article Reassessment of an article you recently contributed to, Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier, has been made as an editor doesn't feel that it meets all of the GA criteria yet. The reassessment can be found at the article reassessment page. Please feel free to make any comments there. Regards,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 02:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg

Look, no one else has a problem with it bar you =\ Be mature I beg you Louis Philippe Charles (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your personal attack, accusing me of not being "mature": that is not helpful to reaching consensus. Please respond on the article's talk page to the citations there which document that Polyxena's official titular suffix was "Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg" and that her titular prefix was "Princess". You have never cited any authoritative text justifying your preference for "Hesse-Rotenburg" or refuting my factual citations on this point. I will be glad to refrain from correcting the article on this point if you cite texts more authoritative than those I have given which refute use of the title "Princess" and the territorial designation "Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg". FactStraight (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. There is no personal attack, that argument is rather tiresome now =\ anyway, i think you will find it was me who made that article what it is today and there for have enough evidence (as shown on the references you keep on removing) that she was never styled Princess but was styled Landgravine. She, as well as all her siblings have never been styled as H R R but simply H Rotenburg. This can be seen by just looking at the names of her siblings (and other family members) that this was the case. There is no point adding other names for the sake of it, you have said this yourself. Please look at my latest edit as a compromise between the two Louis Philippe Charles (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please identify exactly what portion of your most recent change to the article reflects "a compromise between the two". Also, please respond on the talk page of the article in question rather than here, because if you have shown reliable sources which document that her title was "Hesse-Rotenburg" rather than "Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg" or "Landgravine" and not "Princess", everyone should be able to see the exact words used in that source. I have not seen it and do not believe that you have cited it. If I am in error, I will acknowledge that fact on the talk page when you quote your reliable source in defense of your edits. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Why!? Louis Philippe Charles (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI Louis Philippe Charles will be slow to answer on on talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg because he is currently serving another 48 hour block, this time for moving pages without giving due notice. -- PBS (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles

FYI see User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles. After your heads up, I have blocked his/her account for 24 hours. -- PBS (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI see User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles After your heads up, I have Blocked his/her account for one week -- PBS (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LouisPhilippeCharles indefinite block? -- PBS (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR violations

You have broken the 3RR on Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg (Revision history, your history). You are blocked for 24 hours. --PBS (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.

FYI A and B -- PBS (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Guidobaldo II della Rovere

I noticed your comments on Talk:Francesco de' Medici (1614–1634) and Talk:Guidobaldo II della Rovere because of those you might also like to have a look at Talk:Francesco Maria I della Rovere and Talk:Francesco Maria II della Rovere -- PBS (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Stalking LouisPhilippeCharles

Hello FactStraight. I noticed you posted a critique on the talk page of the article Éléonore de Bourbon. Now, while your arguments might be partially correct, i noticed something. You see, LouisPhilippeCharles edited that article. I can see from your talk page that you have a problem with LouisPhilippeCharles. But LouisPhilippeCharles did not add anything to the Éléonore de Bourbon article, he merely editing it for links etc. From my perspective what i can see, it seems as if you are on a crusade against him. Anything he touches you will find a fault in. This disturbs me. Omegastar (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Infact, from looking at your recent edits, you have copy-pasted your critique on numerous articles that ALL share one thing: they were all edited by LousiPhilippeCharles. And I noticed, atleast for the articles that i checked, that LouisPhilippeCharles did nothing more then to copy-edit the articles. He didnt add redundant or trivial information! He added references, corrected links and added categories. This is ridiculous. You are acting in bad faith and stalking a wikipedian! Omegastar (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked more articles and i see that LouisPhilippeCharles did create a number of them. But on others he merely edited them. I think that there is a problem between you and LouisPhilippeCharles, and it needs to be solved before it gets out of hand. I posted this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_FactStraight_is_stalking_and_acting_in_bad_faith. Omegastar (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

This is your only warning. If you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your repeated insertion of the same boilerplate text at the talkpage of multiple articles amounts to a personal attack against the editor referred to. Should you post another of this, you risk being blocked. Please discuss matters with the other editor or seek dispute resolution. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your concerns. I carefully avoided identifying any person who inserts trivia & redundancy. What the articles have in common is that they are bios of historical royalty, all of whom are on my watchlist because that is my primary area of editing interest (please check my contributions to verify). I did not state that each article currently contains excessive trivia or redundancy (or I would have reverted as much of it as I could). The reason I posted those warnings (if you check, I've been posting similar warnings on specific pages for 3 years back) is that the pattern is so consistent and so massively implemented that I wanted to give fair notice on articles on my watchlist that such content will be edited or reverted, and I wanted to give very clear, specific indicators as to what the objectionable content looks like. In the past I've been told that before reverting, the editor should be informed exactly what it is that is objectionable so that they have an opportunity to avoid such edits or to work toward consensus language on the talk page before reverting becomes necessary. It is still my intent to provide that notice and clarity. I will gladly edit the notice to remove content that is "identifying", but I see nothing inappropriate about explaining the basis on which I edit articles on my watchlist. I trust this clarifies? FactStraight (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It does. Thank you for clarifying. When i checked the articles in question, the correlation between your disagreements with LouisPhilippeCharles and the fact that he edited the articles you posted it on gave me the impression that you were stalking him. I probably judged too quickly and i apologise for that. But the warnings are very vague, because they seemingly merely state some rules without identifying wether the article in question has broken those rules or not. Furthermore, the rules in question are themselves pretty vague, in the sense that different people can have differing oppinions on what constitutes as trivia and redundancy. Maybe it would be a good idea for, instead of arguing over this multiple times in numerous seperate articles, you could organise a discussion for people who are involved in writing these articles, and come to a detailed agreement on how to handle these articles. And when i say agreement, i dont mean that the result must be that the view of one party is declared correct and the others declared wrong, but that you come to a compromise in which everyone can agree, because that way, you can work together in adding to and improving these articles. Omegastar (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

RE the above

FS: Please go here for my rant[4]

FW --Frania W. (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

FactStraight, before you send any more of your friends round, be aware of the following. I did not block you - a lot of admins would have done. I reverted your edits to stop any other admins blocking you. If you are having trouble with this editor, the correct approach is to start a request for comment on the user - it allows all you guys to comment in one place, and gives the opportunity for the other person to respond. You might see his point, or you might persuade him to change his ways. On the other hand, if the evidence shows that he's disruptive and he won't amend his modus operandi, you can take it to WP:ANI and ask for him to be banned from the topic. On the third hand (OK, I'm Durga) pull a stunt like that again and you will be the one in trouble.

The RFCU template is a bit of a pig - give me a shout if you decide to go down that route and need help with how to fill it out. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, I beg your pardon, but FactStraight did not enlist my help. When I checked Wikipedia earlier in the day, I noticed what he had done, then next, that you had reverted him & that he was being warned. So, I went to your talk page & left my first msg to you, then left the above note to FactStraight so that he be aware of the fact that he was the object of a discussion by me. I think this is the way such things are handled at Wikipedia. And in the current state of events, he being made the villain, I also wanted him to know that he had my support. Regards,

--Frania W. (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

He's certainly not a villain. But the fact remains, he didn't tag articles, he posted screeds on 50 talkpages. That could be seen as disruptive and might lead someone more aggressive than I to block him - not the desired outcome. So the question is - is anyone going to start this RFCU? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Elen, thank you for clarifying that you do not consider FS the villain in this on-going saga. --Frania W. (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am bewildered by this harsh response. I do not and never have wanted a particular user blocked from editing royalty bios, as clearly indicated in the discussion on this issue here. My intent was and is to discourage inclusion of trivia and redundancy in such articles along with informative edits, which I value and do not think should be diminished or excluded. I hoped to do that by expressing as clearly and explicitly as I could on the articles on my watchlist what I consider to be trivia/redundancy and am therefore prone to edit or revert. When that information is available on a talk page, might it not help editors reach consensus rather than engaging in years of revert wars over countless articles? I don't understand what rule is violated by pro-actively, non-accusatively posting that kind of info on a talk page -- given that I have offered to edit it to your satisfaction? FactStraight (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A further thought on action you can take, why not see if you and the other guys who clearly do see a problem can gee up Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Perhaps you could form a subgroup representing the period and location that interests you. That way, you would legitimately be able to input over a large number of articles to ensure consistency (see the way WP:MILHIST work) Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg

Do not edit another biography article with "Hesse" in the article title until you differences over the content of Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg have been sorted out on Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg if you do expect a long block. -- PBS (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have struck out the previous restriction in favour of a more specific restriction: Do not edit another biography article mentioned in these two templates:

until your differences over the content of Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg have been sorted out on Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg if you do expect a long block. --PBS (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I have not blocked your account and that of LPC is because you need to talk through you differences and I am trying to facilitate that. -- PBS (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"In light of the action taken in response to this dif," It was not in light of that edit, it was because I have been editing Landgraviate of Hesse-Rotenburg (to ad the information that I found and mentioned on the talk page) and those two templates were there. They better reflect the range of pages that are affected by the name dispute currently under discussion on Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg. Once there is agreement on Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg, I suspect that a number of pages will reflect that agreement.

Something that would help facilitate that conversation on Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg is if reliable sources can be found that confirm the information in Kessler, P L. "European Kingdoms: Central Europe: Landgraves of Hessen-Rheinfels (-Rotenburg) AD 1567 - 1869". The history files (Kessler Associates Printhouse). {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help), particularly "Following Philip's death, Hesse is divided into the regions of Hessen-Kassel, Hessen-Marburg, Hessen-Rheinfels and Hessen-Darmstadt, one each for Philip's four sons.". Also the line "1754 Rheinfels is removed from the family title, reducing it to Hessen-Rotenberg." Seems to contradict the line from EB 1911 "Constantine (d. 1778), reunited the lands except Rheinfels, which had been acquired by Hesse-Kassel in 1735.." unless it took them 34 years to accept the loss.

I can find most of the information already on Wikipedia but unfortunately it is copied from Dutch and German Wikipedia and they are not as rigorous on sourcing as we are on English Wikipedia.

There is also the line in the article from 1911 "[Ernest (1623-1693)] ... some years later, on the deaths of two of his brothers, he added Eschwege, Rotenburg, Wanfried and other districts to his possessions"

• Eschwege went to Frederick (a son of Maurice) before passing to Ernest in 1655 this is documented in the German version of the article de:Hessen-Rotenburg
• Rotenburg went to Herman and then to Ernest in 1558 (this is documented in the current English version of Landgraviate of Hesse-Rotenburg but not with a date citation.

We need more detailed sources than I have been able to find to date :-( -- PBS (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5