User talk:Surtsicna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, Surtsicna, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Ancestry of Princess Leonore and Prince Nicolas of Sweden[edit]

look here: Birth record of Maria (Josefa) Michl Daughter of Karl Michl and Marie geb. Kiffl Karlsbad Nr. 177/1910: http://www.portafontium.eu/iipimage/30072092/karlovy-vary-105_0450-n?x=10&y=257&w=887&h=370 and marriage record of Maria (Josefa) Michl and Dr. med. Otto Walter son of Adolf Walter and Maria geb. Hillebrand Karlsbad Nr. 13/1932 http://www.portafontium.eu/iipimage/30071106/karlovy-vary-95_2160-o?x=-158&y=41&w=1039&h=438 Manha83 (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Bedding ceremony[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 24 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bedding ceremony, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bedding ceremony (pictured) symbolised the involvement of family, friends, and neighbours in the newlyweds' sexual intimacy, but also had legal importance in parts of Western Europe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bedding ceremony. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bedding ceremony), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

IronGargoyle (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Great job at Bedding ceremony! Very interesting article. MX () 19:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, MX! Surtsicna (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tvrtko I of Bosnia[edit]

The article Tvrtko I of Bosnia you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Tvrtko I of Bosnia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tvrtko I of Bosnia[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Tvrtko I of Bosnia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms.[edit]

Per your edits in June, at Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, I've made similar changes to the intros of the other people in the line of succession to the British throne. You're correct in that we should be pointing to 'one' country, for the general readership. That country would (of course) be the United Kingdom. I suspect though, all these changes will be reverted, as some (particularly in Canada) are sensitive to giving the UK special status. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not say it had to be the United Kingdom. It can be Commonwealth Realms too. Having none is what is unacceptable. Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Commonwealth realms? would come across as original reading. Anyways, I suspect all the changes will be reverted back. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Then we'll discuss it until we come up with something. Mentioning no country is against both common sense and Wikipedia guidelines. If Neymar should be introduced as a Brazilian footballer, not introducing William (whose ties to the state are enshrined in constitution) as a British prince or future king is a major failure. Surtsicna (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I've no objections to using British throne as that's the one these royals are most associated with. We rarely hear about the Australian throne, Belizian throne or Antiguan and Barbadan throne :) GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Lines of succession page moves[edit]

A week ago you moved a number of pages regarding lines of succession (for example Line of succession to the Swedish throne was moved to Succession to the Swedish throne), your argument being that that is the way the Succession to the British throne is named. To me it seems that most lines of succession pages for monarchies were named like the Swedish one. I don't see the reason for your move, almost all listpages has some explaining lead paragraph on the subject of the list. I urge you to undo your moves. --Marbe166 (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the subject of an article called Line of succession to the Swedish throne would be the line of succession of the Swedish throne. An explanation of that would be saying that it's a list of people. But the article does not (and should not) contain just a list of people. It gives us history from 1810. It gives us modern history and information about recent, breaking changes. Finally, it tells us all about the present succession law. Do you think the article Succession to the British throne should be moved to Line of succession to the British throne? Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

I reverted you at Talk:Mary in Islam‎ because you fail to obey WP:NPOV. Regardless of your irreligion, we're trying to distinguish two different characters. Making a comment that it doesn't matter because you think both are fake isn't helping. No one asked you for your opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I am grossed out by your incivility and audacity, Chris troutman. You are not trying to do anything. You did not contribute to that discussion at all. I did. You have no insight into my religiosity or a lack of it, nor is it any of your fucking business. Next time I see you remove anyone's response from an article talk page, you can expect me to report you. Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

South Slavs and Orthodoxy[edit]

Hello Surtsicna. I noticed this edit which I have no intention of making changes to. I'd say "most" sounds over the top as it gives the impression of "almost all" but if we look at today's South Slavic demographic, Orthodoxy is the largest religion among Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians and Montenegrins. You will find that collectively, this contingent is noticeably more than half. Additionally with Bosniaks and other Slavic Muslims, it is a fact that these populations were Christians before conversion to Islam (though it could just as likely be Catholicism). Clearly some had to be Catholic and some had to be Orthodox so one way or another, there was probably a majority conversion for Orthodoxy. But then farther afield, saying "East Slavs" became Orthodox is another red herring because the East Slav and West Slav are largely invented classifications and seem to work solely on the Catholics in west and Orthodox in east principle. South Slavs obviously descend from populations who travelled to arrive to where they are, I personally see the rest as North Slavs as Slovaks are no closer in any way to Pomeranian Poles than to Ukrainians across the border. That's just my opinion if you wish to revise your contribution. Thanks. --OJ (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you speak of "today's South Slavic demographic", while the article (apparently) speaks of a cultural split that took place following the Great Schism of 1054. Until the Ottoman conquests in the 15th century virtually all Bosnians were Catholics, and for a long time after the Schism Catholicism was also widespread in what is now Montenegro. It makes it really hard to speak of a demographic majority. Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
OK I do see your point. I'm looking today and using it as a reference for 1,000 years ago. It's as well I didn't interfere with the article. --OJ (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Tvrtko I of Bosnia[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 23 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tvrtko I of Bosnia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tvrtko I, the first King of Bosnia, maintained cordial relations with all three churches in his realm—Bosnian, Catholic, and Orthodox? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tvrtko I of Bosnia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tvrtko I of Bosnia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)