User talk:FactStraight/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Surname of French royal family

FactStraight: Glad to see you are agreeing with me. Please go to Surtsicna's talk page & read what I just left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Surtsicna#top

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

hello

hello.. i have just added some reference to the Anne Marie of Orléans article. as a result, i should think that it is fine as it is.

also..i do not mean to come across rude but i do not understand why you insist on reverting many changes made by many under the excuse of conciseness edits. if you have an issue with a piece of info on an artile i do not see why you have to revert it back to how it was last year. i do not understand why you simply "clear up" in way where you do not loose so much valuable info and further sources. wikipedia is afterall a team effort.

i look forward to hearing from you 86.149.172.104 (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

i thought i would have a more mature response. 86.149.172.104 (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bourbon related articles

FactStraight: Thank you for your msg concerning 86.149.172.104 ; 81.159.252.120 & Harding, esq. 120 seems to have been out of mischief since August 2008. However, I believe there is another one beside 104. I keep adding Bourbon-related articles to my watch list. Reverting is a tedious & time-consuming affair & I keep an eye on your contributions so that you do not have to go over the 3Rs - but a lot gets missed because Wikipedia is not our 24/24 occupation. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

FactStraight: Please go to Gaston d'Orléans talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaston,_Duke_of_Orl%C3%A9ans, where I left a msg after another mass revert by 86.149.172.104. Frania W. (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael of Romania

Please, cease your sneaky vandalism on this article: "Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes)." None of the paragraphs that you added in this edit quote any references and as such they are simply misinformation, plausible, but yet misinformation. Thus, they constitute sneaky vandalism. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in making this article better! Nontrickyy (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Westling errors

Your latest edit of Daniel Westling contains such a number of factual errors that it borders on vandalism to the previous very factual text provided by User:Tomas e, then edited and carefully, factually expanded by me. Of course I do not mind your wanting to copyedit to get things in your own style (I have no ego in this), but we must object to your abandonment of the very factual nature of the text. You are making a few things up as you go, in this case anyway, whereas Tomas e and I were very careful to be true to the facts. I will take the time to restore the facts to your text later today, and then must ask you very kindly not to do things like this. Agreed? Greets. 217.209.96.84 (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC) PS - Having recovered from a small shock and after rereading your text, I must add in all fairness that you also have contributed a few interesting, factuals details that were not there before. Thank you!. Of course I won't remove them this afternoon, I'll just fix a few errors. 217.209.96.84 (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm done there now. If you feel any of the terminology is not up to par, please fix it for us! But please also be kind to those facts of ours. Don't miss the new section in Discussion there! Thank you again for all the good work you do all over! 217.209.96.84 (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again and thank you for more good work on Westling. Princesses of Sweden have been duchesses on their own since 1980 - that's almost 30 years. There has been intermittent publicity about Victoria and personal connections/special visits to "her" province since she became 18 in 1996 and about Madeleine and "hers" since about 1999. I think that's traditional enough and that that omittance is a factual error as it stands now. Would you mind if I put this back in? If you do, please reply on the Westling talk page and we can discuss it there. 217.209.96.250 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't agree that 30 years of participation (by 2 females) in a 300+ year tradition clearly establishes them as part of that tradition. However, since you were so courteous as to ask before acting, I will gladly defer to you on this point. Feel free to make the appopriate change. BTW, thank you also for your corrections on Daniel Westling's article: I had mixed up Carl Bernadotte with Oscar Bernadotte. Now fixed. My point in mentioning Oscar & Hessenstein in this article is that there are at least 3 precedents for a male joining the Swedish Royal Family to consider in doing so as a prince (e.g. Daniel, Furste av Westling, Prins Daniel Westling, Prins Daniel, Hertig av Westling), bearing in mind that English translates both Furste and Prins as "prince". As you noted, we're in virgin territory here, and there are lots of options, so let's not ignorantly omit any. FactStraight (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. Done. As a mattar of fact(straight) there have been 4 types of princely titles. Carl's was however bestowed by his brother-in-law Belgium so he was actually a prince (Bernadotte) of the Belgian nobility. No problem removing it, very good you put the others in. Oscar's princely was very odd and no one really knew what to make of it. Father Oscar II (Sr.) loved being King (loved wearing the old crown) and did as he pleased with this one. Jr.'s wife (a noblewoman) was also allowed to be called Princess Ebba, but of What?. Never seen anything like that odd title anywhere. I have a sneaky feeling they will go all the way with Dansy-Wansy (pardon an irresistable Americanism, did you see the Youtube thing?) and he will be of Sweden and HRH, but Sweden (himself) is getting quite unpredictable and increasingly mischievous in his older days, so we'll have to wait and see what he's up to. This is one of the very few things of any historical significance that he gets to decide on his own. It has gotten to be quite pleasant and very interesting chatting with you a bit about these things. Let's continue to support each other's work when our paths cross, and assist in that work as well we we can. I have access to a huge and very reliable private library on these topics, especially the Swedish and some Native American chiefs (!). Thanx again! 217.209.96.65 (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

West thing not Westling this time

Do you only do real royalty or would you be willing to give us an opinion that might help about the Queen of Hollywood at Talk:Mae West new section re: photo caption? 217.209.96.65 (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to note - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EmilEikS related this IP to User:EmilEikS, who was determined to be using a sock puppet during this RfC, after which the sock was blocked and EmilEikS resigned from Wikipedia rather than participate. The IP used sock puppets to try and vote-stack a consensus request at Talk:Mae West in order to coatrack the person in the crypt image into the article. The major "bruhaha" was of the IP's making. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Salic law and agnatic primogeniture

Hello! According to Salic law, only male-line male descendants can succeed. The agnatic primogeniture follows the same principle. See Salic law: The best-known tenet of Salic law is agnatic succession, the rule excluding females from the inheritance of a throne or fief. Indeed, "Salic law" has often been used simply as a synonym for agnatic succession. I don't understand why you changed agnatic primogeniture to Salic law if it's the same thing. Of course, agnatic primogeniture would also apply to male-line female descendants since a woman can also be someone's agnate, but in that case the term cognatic-agnatic primogeniture is used (although just agnatic wouldn't be wrong either). Surtsicna (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As you note above, "agnatic primogeniture" necessarily implies that a female agnate (such as Elizabeth II in the context of the House of Windsor) is eligible to inherit the throne. The term is therefore ambiguous, where "Salic law" is not. Italy, like France, completely excluded women from its succession, whether they were agnates of the dynasty or not. Since it is possible for a monarchy to be Salic and yet not restrict the throne to agnates (Spain had such a succession between 1947 and 1978), the clarification you added may be needed. So-called "agnatic-cognatic primogeniture" is so obscure a term in English that I am inclined to believe that it was created -- as unsourced, original research -- and imposed on Wikipedia's definition of Primogeniture by the same editor (using various IPs when editing this article & its talk page back in April 2005, e.g. 213.243.176.125 and 62.78.104.193 and 62.78.120,161, but later edited Wiki articles as Shilkanni and nowadays posts on Japanese, Finnish & medieval royalty as "M.Sjostrom"). who erroneously defined "agnatic primogeniture" as a synonym for "Salic". Although I try to avoid the awkward "male-line male" terminology, your correction at Prince Umberto of Savoy is fine. FactStraight (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the context of Elizabeth II succeeding to the throne, the term "agnatic" is certainly NOT used. Her succession comes from the tradition of cognatic succession. Please do not over-theoretisize the actual usage. It is immaterial if daughters somewhere in some context can be called as "agnatic" descendants - it is certain that in the succession terminology, no female is ever an agnate. agnates are always males. 82.181.239.182 (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

primogeniture sorts

FYI, there is no difference between agnatic primogeniture and primogeniture by Salic Law. No difference. It would be better, if you will not entertain mistaken ideas about that (= you need to get facts straight in this, too). 82.181.239.182 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Tomislav"

Hi, I've replied to your post on Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta. I'll be honest, your vote sounds like a misunderstanding has occurred. Firstly, a significant number of sources have so far confirmed that Aimone "never assumed the throne" and was a "king that never was". He was named as king by his royal cousin and sovereign, but steadfastly refused to assume that position - in effect remaining "King-Designate of Croatia" (Stevan K. Pavlowitch).

Secondly, "is it used now to refer to a notable person during some period in his life?". No. All sources I've nanaged to find about this (and there are some pretty good ones) never refer to him by any other name other than "Aimone" - except when mentioning what his name would have been after he took the crown (which he swore not to do). could I please see the source that supports the idea that if a person is at all referred to as "king" by anyone at all today - that we are supposed to title an article after that fraction of Google hits.

Thirdly, I don't see why you "opposed by default"? Especially with the Google Books and Google Scholar test results? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, sorry if I was a nuisance. :) Its just that the previous move was for some reason rejected because of votes with imperfect rationale. The title of this article is terrible, and has to change either way. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomislav II of Croatia

I believe that the current title should stay because it is a result of several years of compromises (2007, 2008). Also Wikipedia:Consensus as a rule should be applied because the survey included users that have no opinion on the matter, contribute nothing new, but rather insist on defining who is the pretender. -- Imbris (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, the only reason you want this title is that "Tomislav II" would be so silly and contradicted by so many sources it would be obvious how absurd it is. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

'Tomislav II, 4th Duke of Aosta' is out of the question. Just like the following 'Albert II of Belgium, Prince of Liege' or 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Duke of Normandy' would be. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Louis Alexandre de Bourbon (1747–1768)

FactStraight,

Glad to see you are back. Maybe "no one has, as yet, objected to all these moves" because "no one" (namely you) was (not) here to object... If you care to check my history of these past few months, I have been busier fighting windmills than doing serious editing, thus lacking time to follow up the Bourbon changes & other articles of interest. And right now, I only check once in a while because busy outside wikiland. The most effective manner could be to leave a note on the discussion page of the Bourbon when they are moved and/or on that of our Silent-but-Prolific editor. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Isabel(la)

Hello, FactStraight! I just wanted to explain my edits to Monarchy of Spain. Isabella is also Latin for Isabel. English speaking historians call her Isabella and our articles also call her Isabella (thus we have Isabella II of Spain and Isabella I of Castile instead of Isabel II of Spain and Isabel I of Castile). The article should also link to Isabella II of Spain because editors should avoid redirects. The French term I mentioned was aînesse intégrale. I am not aware that that term is commonly used in English instead of full cognatic primogeniture. Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Radu

Thanks for your support concerning the Radu Duda article. I think your comment was to the point.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5