User talk:Surtsicna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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)

Izador Papo Article[edit]

I'm a family member of him. He was just married to Asya

You have been reported for revert violation[edit]

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox peerage title[edit]

Template:Infobox peerage title has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox family. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh[edit]

The Wikilink Queen Elizabeth II redirects to the page actually titled Elizabeth II, which I have historically understood to be an error- something underscored by the redirect notification which flashes at the bottom of the screen when this occurs. My apologies if avoiding redirects is no longer best practice. Snozzwanger (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I used to think that too since everybody was replacing redirects with pipes, but I've never seen any flashes. Surtsicna (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Nonetheless, that there is no “real” page titled Queen Elizabeth II and that the page about Monarch is actually titled Elizabeth II would I think be my point. Snozzwanger (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A dubious move[edit]

Just came across it, but six years ago you moved Amschel Mayor James Rothschild to "Amschel Rothschild", claiming "no need for full name". I expect anyone looking for "Amschel Rothschild" wants to see an article on Amschel Mayer Rothschild who was certainly a more significant factor in the dynasty.LE (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, LE! If Amschel Rothschild is not the primary meaning of "Amschel Rothschild", then the title of that article should be Amschel Rothschild (businessman) or something like that. A full name is a poor disambiguation. Surtsicna (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Both Amschel Rothschilds were bankers.LE (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Then Amschel Rothschild (British banker). Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth II[edit]

You'd really report me to Arbcom? just to win an argument over the intro at Elizabeth II's article? GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That argument is about one silly letter. What I am bothered by is your general behavior. For years you have been going out of your way to prevent others from improving Wikipedia because you are convinced that consistency trumps everything, from grammar to factual accuracy. GoodDay, I respect you as an long-time editor but this is a serious problem. Surtsicna (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I find your constant opposition to consistency in group articles, to be a problems. Funk & Wagnalls, World Encyclopedia always have consistency in their group articles. We should emulate that style. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we should take this 'style' dispute to Village Pump? Get a wider community opinion on the 'consistency' matter. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not opposed to consistency. I am opposed to errors, bad grammar and orthography, and senseless wording. You are preventing me and others from fixing such issues. If I am unable to make you see how detrimental that is to Wikipedia, I can only hope that an arbitration will. Surtsicna (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
So far, other editors at the Elizabeth II article, have called for the status quo of the intro, to remain. If I was the only opposition there, I couldn't prevent your changes. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
No, they have not, and you know very well that that is not the issue I am prepared to take to Arbcom. Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Concerning papal bios, we did work out our differences there, which resulted in an improved intro for those articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex[edit]

The article Meghan, Duchess of Sussex you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex 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 DannyS712 -- DannyS712 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

List of people from Serbia[edit]

I have missed the discussion about the list and so have several other editors from WikiProject Serbia, which seems foolish and a missed opportunity, as we would like to contribute. Three or four of you guys had a discussion, which seems rather a low number for a talk on such a long list.

I can't say that I agree with your thoughts on it. This list is the closest we have to a full List of Serbs on Wiki. It also seems unreasonable to focus only on People from Serbia, when there are millions of Serbs (half the total nation's population really) outside the country. We have done a lot of work on the page (List of people from Serbia) and I can not see merit in wasting all that work when instead we could simply rename or define the page in some other fashion.

Mm.srb (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Mm.srb. The discussion was open to everyone; nobody kept it a secret. I did not take part in it, but SMcCandlish made a very good case there. The point of renaming it was to redefine it and change the scope, thus avoiding a host of problems (such as WP:OR or WP:BLP issues) and nationalistic edit warring. The article contains heaps of people who not only have no connection to Serbia, but for whom there is no source proving Serb ethnic identity. That is very problematic. Why is Paul Stojanovich on that list? Because one of his great-grandparents was a Serb? Aria Giovanni? What proof is there that Gordana Tomić identifies as a Serb? With due respect to the work you have done there, that list is a mess. Surtsicna (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. "I didn't know about it and thus didn't get to have my say" never, ever casts any doubt on any consensus discussion on WP, or every single consensus discussion would be invalid.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Please don't be unneccesarily personal[edit]

If you would refrain from unneccessary comments like "Sorry Serge" and keep our interaction, when neccessary, strictly impersonal, that would be much appreciated and very constructive. I have never addressed or referred to you in any similar manner. This is my courteous request, and hope you will respect it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You are bothered by "sorry Serge"? Precious. Surtsicna (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Continued sarcasm will not help you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I am so lucky to have you to tell me what's good for me. Surtsicna (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Continued sarcasm will not help you. Adhering to guideline (WP:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor") will, definitely. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Sarcasm definitely helps me deal with your repetitive and embarrassingly immature messages. But for now I've had it, so buzz off. Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Surtsicna, dont bother, just go on. That is just a way to try to master and make you uncertain. No need to put any time in this matter. See my page too for same kind of mastering. Last time I mentioned hus name, though, I was not told anything (might be because I said he was good in a subject). Best regards Adville (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

All of us, you, me, everyone, are expected to work according to guidelines, such as WP:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Advising someone not to work according to such guidelines (which do not exist at Swedish Wikipedia) may not be good advice here. Taking every opportunity to try to get involved in other people's discussions - att lägga näsan i blöt - just to score antagonistic points against one cerrtain user, may also not be a good idea. I never do that. We should all try to create a peaceful constructive working enviornment, not just for ourselves but for everyone. I try hard. Most people recognize that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, always asume good faith in other editors edits. Instead of starting this kind of discussion all the time, taking yours and others tiime, read what the user writes and answer on that. You do not have to start thinga that you know will annoy the other, which allways ends with "keep away from my discussion page", and not any constructive arricle discussion. This is a friendly advice, from me to you so you will not be in all hard pseudo debates you say you hate. Even if it happens to be that you let a user maybe breake a small not significant rule that you happen to think is one of the most important. Adville (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, cut the crap, Serge. Saying "sorry, Serge" is not commenting on a contributor. How do you not tire of ceaselessly playing a victim? Surtsicna (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The word "hate" is not in my vocabulary.
I am not at all a victim here. The victim is the project "English Wikipedia" when such an important working-atmosphere rule is habitually ignored by such a valuable contributor as you (sincere comment), and when such guidelines are called small, not significant rules by a user who swoopes in here to argue from Swedish Wikipedia, where there are no such rules at all.
Surtsicna: every good wish! Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I assure you that the project will survive me saying "sorry, Serge". Thank you for your sincere comment; I wish you too would spend more time editing articles than scolding others. In the future, if you have complaints about my conduct, please take them directly to the administrators' noticeboard. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
FYI: SergeWoodzing was permanently blocked on Swedish Wikipedia for blatant COI and repeated harassment of fellow users. Disembodied Soul (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, Disembodied Soul and Adville. I can tell that some users might feel harassed, but I just roll my eyes, sigh, and get on with my beeswax. It is also quite easy to shrug him off. Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus claims[edit]

Hiello, I saw that you made this edit, without taking part in the debate on the talk page. In relation to that, can you produce any reference for claims that there is some kind of "consensus" on Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy? Several linguistic sources that prove the non-existence of such "consensus" are mentioned here. Sorabino (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You are the one trying to include text that is disputed by others. That means that it is up to you to get a consensus for that change. Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not claiming that there is any kind of "consensus" on "Serbo-Croatian" linguistic controversy, on the contrary - such consensus does not exist, and that is why all views on the subject should be represented in the article. Sorabino (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Bob Keeshan photo[edit]

That photo is still not loading for me, and other photos on other articles are loading fine. Are you sure it's OK? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it loads just fine for me now, as do others. I was annoyed by that bug because I could not see if the new photos I am uploading were better than the ones we already had. Surtsicna (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
DavidWBrooks, do you see it now? The author told me it would not load for him either but I see it clearly. Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Nope - it's a day later and it's still not loading. I've reverted until you can figure out what is going on. I have no problem with any other photos on wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
DavidWBrooks, I do not understand the logic behind removing the photograph. If it loads for me, it likely loads for other people too. Leaving it in the article does not harm anyone. Removing it because some people have trouble loading it (whereas others do not) does not help anyone. Surtsicna (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
DavidWBrooks, try clearing your browser's cache. Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't loading at home or at work - but now it is loading, just fine. Why? Dunno! The logic of removing it, by the way, is that it replaced a photo that worked fine for everybody. If there had been no photo previously, then perhaps leaving a flawed photo would have made sense. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
DavidWBrooks, I am sorry, I did not realize there was a working photograph in the infobox before I inserted this one. It did not load for me so I assumed the file had been deleted. This was a very strange bug indeed. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, that explains why we're butting heads! In 16 years on wikipedia I've never seen a situation where a photo loads for some folks and not for others, so I assumed your file was flawed or the upload failed or something like that, hence my stubborness. Maybe this is a new situation with wikipedia's servers? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I could not see the old photo and you could not see the new! It might be a coincidence, but it seems that it loaded for us in Europe but did not load in North America. The thing is, for some time I could not see any image on Wikipedia and then some appeared while others did not. I am surprised this has not been reported by more people. Surtsicna (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Merovingian kings[edit]

Hi surtsicna,

Ive seen your edits on quite a number of articles on medieval europe and I would just like to ask for your help in searching for citations regarding the birth and death years of a few lesser known Merovingian kings (the rois faineats) since right now quite a few of the dates/sources given are dubious.

Many thanks! FlavusTitus

Hi! I suggest Googling, although I would not be too optimistic about finding reliable sources to confirm the dubious dates. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

War of the Spanish Succession[edit]

I totally agree Berwick is Berwick but it was a change made by another editor and I try to avoid simply undoing edits if possible :)Robinvp11 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a good way to avoid conflict and headache! Cheers :) Surtsicna (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Let us be serious?[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bosnia and Herzegovina, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Notrium (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Manfred of Sicily[edit]

I just noticed your edit with the edit summary "Why should we see that?" The reason people should see that is because the page is pretty long, and it might be a bit difficult for those trying to verify that ref unless they are pointed to the appropriate spot. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, so the Cawley reference is actually Medieval Lands? That website is useful but are you sure it passes as a reliable source? I think it's self-published. Surtsicna (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
It isn't published by Cawley, but by the "Foundation for Medieval Genealogy". I have no idea how RS that organization is, but their site has been used enough by other Wikipedia articles such that someone tailor-made a cite template for it (actually just a wrapper around {{cite encyclopedia}}). ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
But Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley contains Template:Self-published inline and Template:Verify credibility. They seem to have been inserted after a discussion at Template talk:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley. Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Yikes. That thread is big enough to be used for a doorstop, and apparently there are others like it on the same topic. The discussions all may be rather nuanced, but in the end if perhaps the source isn't strictly verboten, it's certainly at least controversial enough to be rendered undesirable. Thank you for pointing this out to me. That Manfred page is a project I'll be working on for perhaps a month or more, and at some point I will try to replace Cawley with a better source. Tks again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for giving some love to Manfred. Good luck! Surtsicna (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)