User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

DYK for John Michael Beaumont

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lady Mary Fox

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Frederick Collings

Harrias ^talk 00:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Haseki Sultan

I saw that you moved Haseki to Haseki sultan, but I think the "s" of sultan should be capitalized, like Valide Sultan. I also checked Turkish Wikipedia about this. I tried to correct it, but I couldn't. So please correct it yourself. Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 21:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that the "s" in Valide Sultan should not be capitalized? It is not a proper noun. Compare it with queen consort, queen regnant, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know Turkish very well, but according to Turkish Wikipedia the "s" should be capitalized. I think it's different from European titles and also the other Eastern titles like Queen consort, Queen mother, etc. And also if Turkish people write those royal titles like that, we should also write those titles like them. Keivan.f^Talk 22:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That does not make sense. This Wikipedia is in English and it is natural to adhere to English language grammar and orthography. We have Stari Most instead of the native Stari most because in English, proper nouns tend to be capitalized and common nouns (as in haseki sultan) tend to be uncapitalized. Should it be Ayasofya instead of Hagia Sophia? Surtsicna (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Surtsicna! I really thought about what you said. I think Haseki Sultan isn't a title like Queen consort. As you know, the word Sultan in Ottoman Turkish was used for the monarch, his consort or consorts and his mother. Thus, I think the "S" should be capitalized as the "Q" is capitalized in Queen consort. And also it's better for you to know the word Haseki means consort, so it could uncapitalized if it became after the word Sultan but as it becomes first so I think both of them should be capitalized. What do you think? Keivan.f^Talk 07:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I think your premise is wrong. Why should queen consort be capitalized? It is not a "correct formal title"; see WP:JOBTITLES. Surtsicna (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

OK! If it is wrong, why Valide Sultan and Ottoman Dynasty? Shouldn't it be Valide sultan and Ottoman dynasty? Keivan.f^Talk 14:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It probably should be Valide sultan and Ottoman dynasty. Compare the latter with Tudor dynasty, for example. Wikipedia is terribly inconsistent regarding these things, so we should consult the Manual of Style when in doubt. Surtsicna (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't you move those pages to the correct form? Should I ask an administrator to move those pages? Keivan.f^Talk 20:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that I cannot. It would certainly be good if you asked an administrator to perform the moves. Surtsicna (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask DrKiernan to perform the moves. Keivan.f^Talk 21:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Greek Crown

Good evening my friend. Of Course there is a source that suggests that the crown passed according to male-preferance cognatic primogeniture. Article 45 of the constitution of Kingdom of Greece describes that clearly. http://norfid.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/suntagma-ths-elladas-19521.pdf --Peeperman (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Interesting. I searched for something like that in English, but could not find anything but indications that the succession law was bizarrely vague. What exactly does it say? Also, how do we know that Irene is the last in line? Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Greek Crown, and its constitutional rights are heritable and contained in the direct and legimate descendants of King George I by seniority, with male preference. Explanation reference: The fact of the article is that by preference the Greek Crown is inherited by the issues of the current monarch by seniority, with male preference. That's it. Sorry for my bad English! --Peeperman (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Papal intro consistency

I'm trying to bring consistency to the intros of all 266 papal bios articles. If you're gonna revert my capitalization of pope? then do so for all those articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

For God's sake, since when is being consistent more important than being correct? Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for contributing to Wikipedia for sheer joy rather than for recognition. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Surtsicna edits articles primarily related to Royal Families and nobility

Surtsicna

Editor of the Week for the week beginning March 31, 2013

One of the many silent workers on Wikipedia, Surtsicna has been an example for all of Wikipedia through his ceaseless editing without a single page about himself. His 30000+ article edits and 140+ articles created speak volumes about his dedication to the project. His articles are based primarily on Medieval nobility and royal families and have been the focus of over 40 DYKs. His simple talk page showcases the humility of the type of underappreciated editor who forms the backbone of this encyclopedia.

Recognized for

High quality contributions on Noble families

Notable work

Robert Hathaway

Submit a nomination

• User:Worm That Turned submitted the following nomination:
  • I nominate Surtsicna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as Editor of the Week for being an excellent Wikipedian, who seems to go out of his way to remain under-appreciated. He seems to work on Wikipedia for the sheer joy of editing, creating over 160 articles (he's brought around 40 to DYK in the past 6 months) and racking up over 30k edits to articles, it's editors like him who really make this encyclopedia something worth reading. Worm^TT(talk)

• You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

• Thanks again for your efforts!

• This infobox has also been erected to proclaim your accomplishments. Again, congratulations! Go Phightins! 23:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Your dilegence on behalf of the encyclopedia is a beacon for others to follow. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! This message is probably the nicest Wikisurprise I've ever had. I'll try to live up to the praise :D Surtsicna (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations and much Thanks for being here on Wikipedia, and being such a help!!! Cheers. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The past two days have been terrible and, as silly as it might sound, coming back to this message has been somewhat soothing. Thank you all for noticing! Surtsicna (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Impending fatherhood"

Looks like that editor has already reached 3RR? Maybe someone should add a warning template at their Talk Page? Or even file at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I would not report him or her yet. It appears that the editor truly wants to improve the article, but does not understand that adding tabloid speculation is not the way to do so. Could you add the warning template? I cannot remember how that works. Surtsicna (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I could do, but to start with I've left a note with admin User:Bbb23. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion thread at the article Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

...for these edits. I had just run out of steam on Isabeau when I read the first sentence and gulped because it was wrong. I couldn't get it right, so thanks so much for stepping in there. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for doing such a great job expanding the article - I am really enjoying it! Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Pointless template

I saw that you removed those templates, because they add nothing to the articles. But you just removed them from the articles of the British Royal Family members, but I think we should remove them from the articles of all Royal Families. What do you think? Also, I removed a paragraph from the beginig of the article of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall because I think all of those things were in the other sections. They really weren't important things. You can see it on the revision history of the article. Should I remove that paragraph again? Keivan.f^Talk 13:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we should remove them on sight. They are inherently trivial and almost always redundant. As for the paragraph, I don't see anything wrong with it. It is a nice summary, which is what the lead is all about. Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Cunnilingus or fellatio not causing pregnancy

Hello, Surtsicna. Regarding the removals you made to these articles, as seen here and here, I'm stopping by your talk page to let you know that I replied to them via WP:Dummy edits. You can see my replies here and here. I obviously understand why you made the removals, and I have stated similar about the ridiculousness of the notion of oral sex causing pregnancy, but I decided that I should point out to you that some people have pondered the question with regard to fellatio. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I have seen your replies. I was reading about gender systems and the peculiar practices of Sambia people when I came across an encyclopaedic article that specifically denies that oral sex can cause pregnancy. I would not have been surprised had it been worded differently, i.e. less obviously. Surtsicna (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, your having already seen my replies means that you are watching those articles now. An extra pair of eyes on those articles from a good editor, as you seem to be, is certainly a good thing. And by "an encyclopaedic article that specifically denies that oral sex can cause pregnancy," I take it that you mean the Cunnilingus article (since you edited that before the Fellatio article)? As for the Sambia people, I definitely know what you mean about their peculiar fellatio practices (though it is less about fellatio in the sense of sexual stimulation for them); they are also mentioned in the Fellatio article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I first read the article about fellatio (don't tell me that the Sambia happen to have customs related to cunnilingus too!), but did not notice the pregnancy part until navigating to the article on cunnilingus. What I meant was that I did not expect to find an excerpt from a teen magazine in an encyclopaedia article - which, by the way, is otherwise uncommonly well-written. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I was wondering how you got to the Cunnilingus article before the Fellatio article after reading about the Sambia people and their semen ingestion custom. And, LOL, "an excerpt from a teen magazine"? Yes, "Can you get pregnant from oral sex?" has seemed to be asked by a lot of young teenagers, and I hope that it's usually young teenagers asking that question instead of pre-teenagers (since it's scarier that people that young, pre-teenagers, would be asking about the specifics of oral sex) or older teenagers and adults (since they should know better). I didn't add those excerpts, by the way, and they were recently added. Anyway, thanks for the chat. We'll likely see each other around from time to time. Flyer22 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Marian Cruger Coffin

Thanks for your kind words about this article! I'm planning to nominate it for GA status after the DYK is done. You might be interested in a related article - I've collaborated with another editor to write an article on one of her most famous gardens, Gibraltar (Wilmington, Delaware). There's a DYK nomination of it that still needs reviewing, at Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar (Wilmington, Delaware). Prioryman (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've taken care of that, naturally :) Reading about places like that makes me regret living an ocean away. Surtsicna (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Yes, I know what you mean. Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Edward the Confessor

Hello, Surtsicna,

The third paragraph of the section entitled "Later reign" starts with the following words:

"In 1053 Edward ordered the assassination of the south Welsh prince, Rhys ap Rhydderch in reprisal for a raid on England,..."

Well, I think it should read: "In 1052 Edward ordered..."

... Because in the third paragraph of the Wikipedia's entry or article "Rhys ap Rhydderch" anyone can read the following:

King Edward the Confessor of England ordered the killing of Rhys in reprisal for his raiding of England, the decision being made at the royal court held at Christmas, 1052.[3] Rhys was killed, according to the D version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, because he "did harmful things". The chronicle of Florence of Worcester recorded a bit more information, stating that Rhys was killed at "Bulendun", which may be Bullen's Bank near Clyro in Radnorshire.[4]

More about EDWARD THE CONFESSOR,

Also, the fourth line of the third paragraph of the section entitled "Canonisation" reads: "... canonization...". I think this should be changed in order to read: "... canonisation..." as it appears in the title of the section.

A salute from Guadalajara, Mexico.

Alejandro Ochoa G.
189.162.136.115 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.162.136.115 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! You are welcome to edit the article yourself if you think there is something that should be corrected. If reverted, you should ask for clarification at Talk:Edward the Confessor. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious

noble ladies
Thank you for quality articles on people of European nobility, especially women such as Beatrice of Falkenburg, maintaining articles of the topic, removing trivia, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you for noticing, especially the removal of trivia! Articles on nobility seem to be especially prone to it. Surtsicna (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hold yer horses!

The Succession Act may have received Royal Assent and passed into law, but its provisions don't come into effect until such time as the Lord Pres (Clegg) says so. That is to say, the throne still, as of right now, descends according to the 1701 Act. DBD 16:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha! I must say the title made me laugh! Anyway, pardon my jumping the gun. I was not aware of that requirement. When exactly is that supposed to happen? The eagerness of editors to make articles up to date is guaranteed to lead to mistakes such as mine. Surtsicna (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Clegg is likely to announce the commencement as soon as the last necessary law in the last necessary realm receives royal assent... There's a source for that somewhere. No worries, we all jump the gun sometimes! DBD 17:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Mass move of Royal coronations to Coronations

Hello, Surtsicna. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Coronations in Poland, Coronations in Norway, etc. It looks like, you have not used any of the usual channels for a series of controversial page-moves, not only regarding Poland and Norway, but also Hungary and Russia... Regrettably, your new titles seem to lack the necessary wp:consensus. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 21:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Queen Máxima of the Netherlands

Please check the Dutch Royal Site attached. She is styled with the formal name of Queen, but she is NOT Queen of the Netherlands. This was officially stated by the Royal House and the Dutch Government. Her name is Queen Maxima, her title is Princess of the Netherlands. I have attached prove of this with the appropriate page, where you offer nothing to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.2.3 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC) The title of the page should -according to Wiki rules- actually read Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands just as Charles, Prince of Wales or Willem-Alexander, King of the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.2.3 (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You asked for a discussion on your TALK page, yet refuse to join into one. You insist upon your own interpretation and offer nothing is reference. Please stop deleting the referring pages or add your own. It is impolite and might might even be taken for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.20.216 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange

I may not be fully aware of all wikipedia's conventions but please can you explain why you have removed Catharina-Amalia's photograph from her page?

Jwasanders (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I removed it because it was not fair use, as it was claimed. In fact, it should probably be deleted. I hope you understand. Surtsicna (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Privilege of Buda

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Dutch throne - Princes Maurits and Bernhard

I strongly disagree with your revert. The article subsection is on the current line of succession to the throne, and these two Princes are no longer in that line since the accession of the current King.

Yes, they could return to the line if their mother were Queen, but she is not. If she ever is, that will be the right time to include these two princes in a chart showing the succession.

I am going to re-revert, and put something on the article's talk page so we can have some additional input from other people. P M C 10:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The article does not say that they are in the line. What we have there is a graphical representation of relationships between people who are in the line. Princess Beatrix is also there, although she cannot possibly ascend the throne again. In fact, Prince Maurits has a better chance at ascending the throne than Princess Beatrix. Please, discuss before changing the status quo. Surtsicna (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary. By including them in the chart, the implication is clear: the article is titled 'Line of Succession to the Dutch Throne' The subsection and chart is titled 'Line of Succession'. As you said just now yourself, it 'is a graphical representation of relationships between people who are in the line.' These two princes are now excluded from the line by the Grondwet, and thus it is clear they should not appear in the chart. Should some disaster befall the 7 higher-placed heirs while their mother is still alive, they will return. That is when they and their children should be added back in. Not before. The only reason the two former queens appear here, is to show how and why Constantijn and Margriet are in line to succeed, otherwise they too would no longer appear, since one is 'constituionally dead' and the other is actually dead.

The notes under the chart make it clear that Margriet has four sons, two of whom could be in line to the throne should she ever come to the throne herself, and explain why it is they are not (currently) in the line of succession. That is the best way to represent this information.

The line of succession to the British throne does not serve as a comparison, because that line is not limited by degrees of kinship as the Dutch throne is. P M C 13:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Union of Hungary and Poland

Hello! Your submission of Union of Hungary and Poland 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! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Union of Hungary and Poland

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Monte delle doti

Hello! Your submission of Monte delle doti 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar, Queen Noor

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for cleaning up Queen Noor. 89.242.200.100 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome! Surtsicna (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Royal Styles

G'day Surtsicna, you appear to have started to unilaterally remove the royal styles templates as you believe them to be pointless and to add nothing. Per previous discussions on this subject, there are reasons that other editors have found it useful to include them (and a few editors who disagreed). Wearing my reader hat (rather than my editor hat), I certainly find this information of interest. Given the past history I think that if you really want to eliminate them, this needs to be raised for discussion. From my perspective, I am more concerned about preserving the information, if there is a better way to do this (eg incorporating into another template) and editorially the alternative it makes sense, then you won't get any objection from me. If I there has been a recent discussion on the subject that I have missed, my apologies and feel free to point me to it. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I was not aware of any such discussion but I am sure that, had a seperate one been opened for each of the articles, it would have resulted in the removal of the template. In articles I removed them from, they simply did not add anything. They were directly and absolutely redundant to the very text they appeared next to. In those cases, even the image of the coat of arms appeared elsewhere. I refrained from removing the template in cases where at least one part of it - the image of the coat of arms - was not redundant, though only because I was too lazy to simply replace the box with the image itself, which would be a much more useful solution. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 18:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis

Sorry if I stepped on your toes, but that edit not only did not have an edit summery, but it literally read: "Fraciscus PP", which looks like vandalism to me. I'd rather protect the integrity of Wikipedia 100 times over by reverting possible, and I did say "possible" in my edit summery, than be wrong a few times on the "good faith" issue.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to apologise to me. It may have looked like vandalism to you, but only because you are not well acquainted with the matter. You could (should) have Googled it, which would have taken you a few seconds. You are missing the entire point of the Assume good faith guideline - if you are "not sure what this is", why assume that it's vandalism? Surtsicna (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, if it looks like vandalism its getting reverted. Better to be safe than sorry. Thats not a faith thing, its a BLP thing.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot (and don't want to) tell you how to behave, but don't be surprised if people get offended and react very negatively to such thoughtless actions. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well WP:BLP pretty much trumps an occasional breach of good faith.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Surtsicna (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Son & daughter of King Eric XIV of Sweden

How do you arrive at the standpoint that Prince Gustav and Princess Sigrid did not bear those titles, and then proceed to move them without discussion to article names with phonetically non-empathetic patronyms (we should avoid Swedish lessons on English WP)? I'm not too pleased about it. A bit arbitrary? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there any sources that confirm that they were styled as prince and princess of Sweden? Surtsicna (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Plenty. Such as biographies of both. And every other encyclopaedia, including Swedish WP.

Are there any sources that confirm that they were not? Their parents were crowned monarchs (even if relatively briefly). Why wouldn't they be? I've never seen this questioned before. Why are you questioning it? Can you be specific, please? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That does not sound very convincing, SergeWoodzing. It makes no sense to request a source that says what they were not. By that logic, I would be able to claim that they were, in fact, extraterrestrials, and you would not be able to refute it because there is no source that confirms that they were not. Anyway, I am not questioning the fact that they were children of a monarch (and of his wife). What I am questioning is the appropriatness of referring to them as "Prince(ss) X of Sweden", as that seems very anachronistic. It may be correct to describe them as Swedish prince and princess, since they fit the meanings of those words, but I don't think the format was appropriate - unless, of course, it can be proven that they were called "Princess Sigrid" and "Prince Eric" during their lifetimes. Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your demand here borders on the bizarre. How many 16th century princes and princesses can that be "proven" about? Would you like photo-ID's? Driver licenses? In any case, the moves you did, adding another phonetical impairment like "Eriksdotter" (which she was not called "during her lifetime") to English WP, were controversial and should not have taken place without discussion. Please revert them and request a move in due process! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing bizarre about my request for a proof that they were styled "Prince(ss) X of Sweden". It is the most reasonable request a user can make during a discussion. If they were styled as such, you should have no problem whatsoever in finding proof. They did not live before writing was invented, did they? Anyway, the idea that an inaccurate and misleading title is better than a "phonetically non-empathetic patronym" seems a bit odd, to say the least. I could live with Sigrid of Sweden (Vasa) or Sigrid Vasa, though I cannot think of a phonetically empathetic solution for the article about Eric. Surtsicna (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hussein bin Abdullah, Crown Prince of Jordan

Hello! Your submission of Hussein bin Abdullah, Crown Prince of Jordan 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! Crispulop (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Isabeau of Bavaria

Hi Surtsicna, I've sent Isabeau to peer review in preparation for another run at FAC. Because you had some comments in regard to content, I thought I'd alert you - that's a good place to raise issues before FAC. Thanks, Victoria (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Crown prince of Yugoslavia?

I saw that you annulled my changes, he can not be crown prince of a country that does not exist, on serbian wiki is named by his proper name Aleksandar II Karađorđević -Milicevic01 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Tell that to the Princess of Hanover and the Government of Monaco; apparently, she can be princess of a country that hasn't existed since 1866. Anyway, Alexander is styled as crown prince by convention. Wikipedia uses the most common English language name, not the legal name (otherwise we'd have James Earl Carter, Jr. instead of Jimmy Carter). How Serbian Wikipedia deals with the issue is completely irrelevant. Surtsicna (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, tnx for the info, i simple presumed since he isnt called crown prince of yugoslavia in his home country, that also on en. wiki should not be called crown prince of yugoslavia. -Milicevic01 (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Royal wedding

I don't understand why you reverted my edit, which was surely an improvement. I can see the wedding on TV right now and for some hours to come. Do you believe you have better information? Bishonen | talk 14:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

Hi! I am sorry, I should have explained it. I did not pay attention to page history. I don't think we should present continuous, i.e. we should go from "will take place" to "took place", because this is an encyclopedia, not a news portal. Anyway, this issue is going to be moot within minutes :) Surtsicna (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Always pay attention to page history. Bishonen | talk 14:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

That is not a response to my concerns. Surtsicna (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing over one word. Well, I have never seen that before but now I have. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I nominated the article to ITN. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Has the acronym POV acquired a new meaning recently? I don't see Bishonen or me violating what is usually referred to as the POV policy ("Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias"). What did you have in mind, BabbaQ? Surtsicna (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Surtsicna, my own concern was that you made the text incoherent by changing my first progressive form, only, to future tense, while leaving the others. Hopefully checking the history and simply reverting me wholesale (if possible with an explanatory edit summary), which I wouldn't have objected to, would have prevented that. Bishonen | talk 14:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

• Good decision nominating the article for DYK. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I saw that your INT nomination was going to fail, so I decided to expand it and nominate for DYK instead. It had potential, so it would have been a shame if it failed to appear on the Main Page. Anyway, I restored the red link to Michael Bjerkhagen. The Swedish Wikipedia has an article about him and he is covered by English language sources, so he's most likely notable enough. Surtsicna (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hussein bin Abdullah, Crown Prince of Jordan

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wedding of Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill

Hello! Your submission of Wedding of Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Penelope Lyttelton, Viscountess Cobham

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sheikh Maktoum

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Sheikh Maktoum.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Irina Aleksandrovna Ovtchinnikova

Hello! Your submission of Irina Aleksandrovna Ovtchinnikova 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! Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Prince Leopold Clement of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Hey Surtsicna! Fantastic job on the article for Prince Leopold Clement of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha! I've had it on my Wikipedia to-do list for years now, so I was elated to see that you drafted such a comprehensive article on him! I'll remove him from my list, and will keep on the lookout for additional images. Thanks again for all extraordinary contributions to Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Prince Leopold Clement of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Hello! Your submission of Prince Leopold Clement of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha 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! czar · · 05:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Title Move Discussion

I have opened up discussion at Talk:Enthronement of the Japanese Emperor#Title Move Discussion. You are invited to provide your opinion in the interest of consensus. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Boneyard! Thanks for inviting me. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for reviewing Mansoor al-Jamri for DYK. I'm glad you asked me to change the hook as it was absolutely not appropriate. I would like you to have this as a reward for the niceness you displayed while reviewing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're interested in the article, you can give it some quick copy-editing, or even better review it for GA. Mohamed CJ (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your appreciation, as well as for considering me fit to review the article for GA status. However, I will be away for several days, so I'm afraid I'll have to pass. I wish you best of luck with the GA review, though I doubt you'll need it. I'll make sure this barnstar stays on my talk page :) Surtsicna (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, the hook is still not promoted (now 2 weeks later). It seems you forgot to add the icon. Cheers. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I did! Thank you very much for reminding me of it and I'm sorry if that held it back. Surtsicna (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It is supposed to be unnecessary as anyone reading the discussion would conclude that it's approved, but.. Thanks for your prompt response. :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome! I see that it's been promoted, so I suppose it was held back due to my mistake. Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Enthronement in Japan

Just letting you know that when I added my comments to the talk page discussion about moving this article, I added a bolded "move" just above your reply, in accordance with what seems to be general practice with "keep/delete" or "move/retain" discussions like this. I hope you don't mind; if you do, please accept my profound apologies, and feel free to remove the "move." - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. Of course I don't mind. Surtsicna (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Prince Leopold Clement of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Nice work on Prince Leopold Clement of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Indulge me in a nit-pick. I think "mistress" strongly implies "the female sexual partner of a married man". A married man can have a mistress; an unmarried man has a girlfriend who puts out. I'm willing to admit there may be no easy encyclopedic way of expressing that. - Nunh-huh 05:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I see what you mean, but which word do you think we should use instead? "Girlfriend"? I don't mind it if you insist it's more accurate. According to this dictionary, though, "mistress" can mean "a woman who has a continuing extramarital sexual relationship with a man". Surtsicna (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think girlfriend is probably closer to the truth than mistress is (or prostitute!), but I don't have a strong objection to continuing "mistress" if we can't find an alternative. "Mistress", though, certainly is a disapproving term, and I'm not sure Wikipedia should disapprove, in its own voice, of a relationship because it's considered unequal. The dictionary you pointed to is quoting Collins; the operative definition in the New American Oxford Dictionary is "a woman having an extramarital sexual relationship, esp. with a married man". I don't think it's a British/American difference, but rather an issue of being sensitive to connotations and tone as well as denotations. I would suggest "lover" or "paramour". Nunh-huh 06:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh, yes, I forgot to point out that Rybicka (or her ghost or whatever) should be happy we're not calling her a prostitute. Several other Wikipedias do, which is why it took me so long to find the sources. I kept looking for a prince murdered by a prostitute until I learned of her name at the reference desk. Anyway, "lover" sounds fine, I suppose. Surtsicna (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It certainly sounds like one wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of Rybicka, even of her ghost... I think "the Prince's lover" is a really great substitution from mistress! Thanks for indulging me in fixing this little bête noire. - Nunh-huh 08:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Wedding of Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Qexigator's barnstar

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For exemplary rebuttal of intrusive inanity dumped on your talk page Qexigator (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the barnstar, Qexigator! It's terrible that I even had to earn it, but I was truly shocked by such impertinence. Hopefully, I'll never get to give you such a barnstar. Surtsicna (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Irina Aleksandrovna Ovtchinnikova

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Prince Peter of Greece and Denmark

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Eva Brunne

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Find-A-Grave

Per WP:ELNO points #1, #4, #12 and #13, we are not here to promote "Find-A-Grave". Any person can go out and take a picture of the grave at Arlington, donate to the WMF, and then post it on the article. We do not need to link to this site to get an image of the headstone. It's a spam external link. Doc talk 11:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for contacting me, but perhaps the article talk page would be a better place. Anyway, I think you are misinterpreting WP:ELNO. By your standards, it appears that linking to any website in the external links section would be a promotion. Why doesn't anyone go out and take the picture, donate it to WMF and then post it on the article? For as long as no one does, I don't see why we should deny readers the opportunity to see those images. The website contains several such photographs. Perhaps we should get another opinion on the subject? Surtsicna (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm The Theosophist. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Catherine of Bosnia. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Unfortunately, the image you removed was actually an image of Catherine of Bosnia. Catherine of St Sava is an alternative name of her. Be more careful. The Theosophist (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry for this. I had thought that you had supposed that it was a different person, only from the fact that the image had another name and that you didn't know that she used both names. Sorry again.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Straightforward

OK, I agree that the box is not needed.

Concerning straightforward sources, do you mean that when we have sources that someone was born in 1834 and died in 1879 but we don't have sources stating that he was 45 years old, we can't add the age?--The Theosophist (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No, of course not. See Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations. Surtsicna (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I see. May I ask another question? If I have sources stating that A was B's legitimate son and I also have sources that B was married to C and they both married only once in their lifetime, is it considered original research to state that A was a son of C?--The Theosophist (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course you may, but I am not entirely sure if I can answer correctly to that one. Is it not possible that A is B's legitimated child (legitimated through a decree, for example) by an unwed partner and thus not the son of C, or that A is B's adopted child who was not also adopted by C? Louis Auguste, Duke of Maine, for example, was Louis XIV's legitimate[d] son, but not the son of Louis XIV's only [undisputed] wife. Such situations rarely arise, and when they do, historians or biographers usually offer explanations, so I doubt any OR would be necessary. Surtsicna (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, that was just an example to help myself understand policy. Thanks a lot!--The Theosophist (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Any time! You can also ask the same question at Wikipedia:Help desk. You might get a more precise answer there. Surtsicna (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Prince Leopold Clement of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

The DYK project (nominate) 11:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)