Talk:Countess Palatine Eleonora Catherine of Zweibrücken

Princess of Sweden

The claim that she was given the title princess of Sweden when her brother became king, was added to this article without any sources at all. This is evident by looking at the edit history of the article. Because of this reason, it is the task of those who which to keep this information to provide sources, not the other way around.--85.226.41.245 (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add that, but you added info that is unsourced and it is up to you to source it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been disrespectful in edit-warring and putting that unsourced claim of yours back in without a source. I will reverse it tomorrow unless you do it now, and if you put it in again without a source, I will open an RFC on you for disruptive editing. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And while I am at it I will request an IP investigation, since you seem to be doing such provocative editing from various different IP addresses which can be traced. Such behavior is called trolling I believe. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that her sister, Maria Eufrosyne, was given the title Princess of Sweden in 1654, is evident from her article, were it seems to have been from the beginning. This information has not been in the article of Eleonora originally, but was added without being sourced. You have not added this information, but you are now protecting it despite the fact that it is un-sourced. What I have done in this article, was reverting un-sourced claims with support of the sourced claims in the article of her sister. You have been insisting that the un-sourced claims remain, and that I have been adding un-referenced claims. Therefore, You are in fact more likely to have broken RFC. I am well aware of the fact that we have been in disagreement before regarding several articles. The fact that we have had different wievs, does not mean that I am a troll. The fact that I have edited from different IP adresses, does not mean that I am a troll. The IP on my computer changes all the time. I believe it is important to be able to disagree without accusing each other of being trols. I also beleive, that it is important to be able to disagree without accusing each other of being disruptive. I have found nothing in my behaviour here to varrant such accusations. I therefore welcome a third oppinion. --85.226.47.210 (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In an attempt to solwe this issue in a civil manner, I have now asked for a third oppinion. It may be better to invite a neutral party, if the discussion is as heated as I have come to understand from your language. --85.226.47.210 (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now read Wikipedia:Trolling, Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It does not seem that you have the right to label me as a troll. Please to not make threats. Neither does it seem that you have any foundation to label me as a disruptive editor. I can not see that I have been disrespectfull in any way, nor can I see that you have any fondation to say that I have been doing "provicative editing". If you find it disrespectfull and provcative to be contradicted, then it is not my responsibility. On advice, I have placed a fact-tag on the un-sourced statement you wish to keep.--85.226.45.21 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added the source you asked for. You have not added the one I asked for, so once again I removed your claim about her sister, which was (1) unsourced and (2) not factual. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: Since you use so many different IP's I do not know to whom I am writing, whether or not it is one and the same person etc. etc. etc. - It would also be odd for you to write in first person as I and me - under such circumstances, isn't it?

Apparently you are not aware that many internet service providers use dynamic IPs. If you are interested in learning more, there is information at IP address#Static vs dynamic IP addresses. And a person's use of pronouns may be sketchy if English is not their first language. --Diannaa ^TALK 15:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa! I am well aware, and I am also aware of how some WP users make use of that fact for less-than-ethical behavior. There is no pronoun problem, here, it's an attitude thing, in my opinion. The same user has long been known to me (as per style) here and on sw.WP.

Would you agree that the 3O question itself now has become moot? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume this person is unethical. Unsophisticated, maybe. --Diannaa ^TALK 15:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize sincerely for making understandably inconceivable inferences re: a user with whom you apparently are not familiar, Diannaa. I am, and I am very sorry to have had many unpleasant and time-consuming, not to say disruptive and provocative, dealings with him/her (according to my own interpretation of debate style employed by someone from many similar IP addresses) on en.WP and sw:WP. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a reference, i.e. "Ulf Sundberg in Kungliga släktband ISBN: 91-85057-48-7 p. 281" May I ask that you provide information on the publisher, and publishing date? That should end all the silliness here. Please do not personalize this matter. Smallbones (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done And point well taken re: personalizing. Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am happy that the un-referenced information is now sourced. My only intention was to ask for a source for information which was added without one. That matter has now been sourted out per request, and I am content. I do not know wether it is true or not, having not read the book in question, but this can of course always be checked by any one who which to controll it. I am villing to excuse the accussations made against me, and I am thankfull for the support regarding that matter. I also feel that personal feelings is not important in this context. Thank you very much! --85.226.43.194 (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Countess Palatine Eleonora Catherine of Zweibrücken and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: Let me begin by noting that the entry into this dispute of Diannaa and Smallbones has not addressed the dispute listed at the Third Opinion project, so it is still a dispute between two editors, SergeWoodzing and 85.226.47.210. That dispute has partially been addressed by SergeWoodzing providing a source for his entry. The issue then becomes the text removed by SW in this edit. My opinion is that the deleted material is, indeed, unsourced and is subject to being removed, but the edit in question should have only been {{fact}}-tagged, not removed from the article. WP:BURDEN says: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. One thing, however, is clear: whether in or out, the impending edit war over this addition needs to stop now.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I removed the unsourced entry only because it directly contradicted the (now) sourced one, which I knew to be factual. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not claim being an expert on this matter: I deleted un-sourced information, and when SergeWoodzing insisted it remain despite the lack of sources, I added what I understood to be a clerification from a corresponding article. I would not have done this if the un-sourced material hade not been defended despite the fact that it was un-sourced. The information has now been sourced, and I am thereby content to have it remain. I am willing to forget about to the hostility and accusations above, and I also trust there will be no more of them. Wikipedia is about making an Encyclopedia, not about personal resentment and figthing with other editors, I feel. I am glad this matter could be solwed by a third party.--85.226.43.194 (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A man?

Isn't the picture in this article depicting a man? Againme (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The clothing is that of a woman, though her appearance may not answer to everyone's personal idea of how a woman "should" look. --Aciram (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point on the clothing. --Againme (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

New image

Here is a different image of her: [1] Perhaps it could be added to commons and added to this article? --Aciram (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Much better. I've copied it now and will take care of this soon. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)