User talk:217.140.193.123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires you to provide no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

  • The use of a username of your choice
  • The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
  • Your own user page
  • Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
  • The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
  • The ability to rename pages
  • The ability to upload images
  • The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
  • The eligibility to become an administrator
  • The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion
  • Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Thanks, Alphax τεχ 07:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Redirects

Please refrain from creating redirects to nonexisting articles. In accordance with Wikipedia official policy, those articles will be speedy deleted. Consider creating redirects only after you have created the article to which you intend to redirect. Thanks, Redux 3 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)

Also, you may find interesting the following pages: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, Wikipedia:WikiLove, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. There's more stuff, but this should provide you with the basics. Good luck. Regards, Redux 3 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

[edit] Wales as a surname

Actually, I am trying to avoid conflicts that will arise (and have arisen) over the use of the word surname with the princes' use of the appellations "William Wales" and "Harry Wales". I have found that many WP editors have very strong opinions on what information is "correct" in these two articles and avoiding problems is the best course of action. -Acjelen 7 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

[edit] observations

Bwahaha, it seems that there exists "interesting" administrators here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anders&diff=12121141&oldid=12045645

some "silliness": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Kenney#Is_this_you.3F

[edit] a duo creating ...whatever they are...

A certain Redux is showing certain possessiveness. On 2 July he put sort of "edit lock" tag in an article he regards as his possession - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Luiz_of_Orleans-Braganza&diff=18073741&oldid=18029717
Of course, despite requests, even after several days, he has not taken his that tag away: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APrince_Luiz_of_Orleans-Braganza&diff=18140691&oldid=18065709

Received a reply. There is the writing of that certain user who apparently lives in delusions of being an honest editor, peaceful and behaving properly: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARedux&diff=18141329&oldid=18140990

And another possessive writing to me, instructing me to "get a grip": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsabel_of_Brazil&diff=18111779&oldid=18108162
We can only wonder why Redux wants to deserve certain articles to himself, criticizing others for writing them. Among animals, there is the phenomenon of territoriality, the trait of possessiveness of certain "revir".

Ms Antares, the other part of the duo (who besides being User:Antares911, has apparent sockpuppets User:at33 and User:Bhinneka), had wanted to demolish basics of the standard nomenclature for royals. Apparently, she deems a titulary extremely necessary in all headings. However, she lost such battle: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMarie_Antoinette&diff=15764004&oldid=15580834
Antares wants to have Marie Antoinette under heavily titled and protocollarly spelled Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austria - it will obviously be no problem to Antares if only very few recognize Marie Antoinette there. All others in the vote page were clearly against Antares' specific proposition - and she received practically only criticisms in the more general talk page on titles-naming discussion page: ...thus Ms Antares appears deeply disturbed by the fact that she herself cannot CONTROL a discussion. There is the threat of deleting other's comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29&diff=17845175&oldid=17844197

And here, Ms Antares ("OhmylordIcan'tbelieve") fulfills her threat: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUbol_Ratana&diff=17795556&oldid=17360730 (as probable control freak, was she thinking: opinion of another, opposing, is best to delete before new discussants read those reasons?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style_%28Thailand-related_articles%29&diff=17848782&oldid=17835375 (was another deletion by Antares, but a totally other user, MarkAlexander, soon reverted)

The notorious Ms Antares had 21 June forecasted her eventual victory in naming standardization, and had cut-pasted the contents of Elisabeth of Bavaria and made an identical article under Elisabeth, Empress of Austria: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisabeth%2C_Empress_of_Austria&diff=17881414&oldid=17699043
Sadly for her ambition, a sysop reverted Antares' efforts when the duplicate article was found. And, at the same time, Antares was not victorious in the naming argumentation.

Found the apparent motivation of Ms Antares and her frustration: Antares is clearly living for privileges, wanting to ensure her preferred position against others: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohn_Kenney&diff=18120125&oldid=18113253
Here, the basis of privileged position is registration (which she has clearly done using at least three usernames - "many privileges"), apparently a merit good enough to her to deserve control over others, "precedence". And, this fits nicely to the pattern of not wanting criticism nor counter-arguments to be read by others, as she, the "privileged" editor, has that "precedence" over others.

Found also some old background from one certain user. Apparently a possessive mind. Talk:Real#Order of items

The said Redux is showing a querulous syndrome, as well as some paranoia - all this in addition to obsessive territorialism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohn_Kenney&diff=18598759&oldid=18560223
I would not let that querulant to decide anything here, as it seems very clear that those decisions would be based on paranoias and other problems.

-- I heard rumors that several days ago the above duo, Redux and Antares, had attempted to create some inquisition (something like crusade) against me, concocted some official complaint, and sought for support from all sorts of bosses. However, several saner persons apparently declined (some explicitly, some by silence) to partake in the nefarious pursuit. Eventually, an administrator rumoredly quashed their complaint.
Further, I heard allegations that the said duo have now vowed to make revenge, to follow me (stalk?) and to create evidence (fabricate?). As their such project is progressing, obviously I do not need to assume good faith from their part...


So sadly it seems that a certain user (with over 3000 edits) has days when he has forgotten to take his pills. The deranged mind creates accusations: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=19154925&oldid=19148102
where there are conspiracy theories (remember that the person in question sees others paranoid). The said deranged mind obviously twines his personal crony's (Antares') sockpuppeting to label other, innocent users.
Re my earlier analysis of the said querulant's malign intentions, that writing at the Village Pump can be regarded as a fabricated evidence/accusation.

[edit] wiki-stalking

I have got a distinct feeling that a few users are doing something called wiki-stalking, going purposely to articles I have edited (without having any previous part in that article) and then making edits, presumably to irritate. I must think that apparently is a pattern of behavior happening in this sort of circumstances, there being also less than sane people, apparently without enough to do on their own. That sort of irritation is one good reason not to use or create any account here. Anyway, such wiki-stalking is interesting feature of behavior, and I will look at such cases sometimes.

Wiki-stalking apparently received a definition from arbitration committee, and of course user Deb is attempting to change that definition to suit her better.

[edit] Baseless accusations

It is Wikipedia policy to place deceased consort articles at pre-marital mame. It is also standard historical naming policy. Stop breaking the rules. FearÉIREANNImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 17:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow. I was simply pointing out that the location of the QEtheQM article is a product of Wikipedia rules on consorts - which are also the general rules followed his historians and royal writers, hence Catherine of Aragon, Blanche of Castile etc. I wasn't making any 'baseless allegations'. I simply pointed out that you had made a move that was contrary to wikipedia policy, and asked you not to. (I may have worded it unfortunately, and for that I apologise.)

FearÉIREANNImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 18:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

What is the move you claim I had made?
I certainly have not put Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in that spot of Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother - I have opposed such placement, and moreover I have not actually moved any articles (here in Wikipedia). So, if that has been your allegation, you should apologize. 217.140.193.123 18:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. Oops. It was indeed User:Antares911 who did the move.

(cur) (last) 18:03, 10 July 2005 Antares911 m (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon moved to Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother)

You edited a redirect page. When anonymous users edit pages their work is often checked by people. When I entered the page you had entered this automatically linked to the page at QE the QM, and I wrongly concluded that you had move the page. I apologise. Do be careful however about editing redirect pages like the one you edited. It was set up to untangle a broken link. With all the moving of the Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon page before links were mucked up all over the place. I'd linked that page the way it was to try to untangle the mess. It was my misreading of your edit and I apologise totally. BTW it is good to have another opponent of the 'lets put royal consorts at consort name' brigade, though to be honest there is a clear consensus to use maiden name/title, and those advocating a different view are in a minority. The names conventions were worked out after a lot of hard work; Palaces were contacted - on one day alone I spoke to people in palaces in London, Madrid, Copenhagen and Oslo! - ; historians were questions; textbooks were reviewed; royal experts were asked. Then the proposals were put on the wikilist and on talk pages and debated at length before a consensus was reached. It is of course still a work in progres:s, as new angles and complexities over individual problems (long abolished monarchies, clerical titles, etc. crop up all the time.
One final bit of advice. Edits by unnamed editors are routinely checked as a lot of them are done by vandals. You ar:e clearly a serious editor. I would recommend you create a specific user page so that your work can be clearly identified as yours and not just an anonymous number.
Finally, again, please accept my apologies for my error over who moved the page. It was unintentional.
FearÉIREANNImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 19:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing against that people go and check pages I have edited. (Provided they do it carefully and do not "shoot without thinking"). It actually is nice that people read pages, and additionally if they have something to add or amend, the article improves. If so happens, I am happy.
Re user registration, I do not want such power. For example, I do not want to move or revert articles (although sometimes my fingers chide when seeing something...) - I think it is better that another does it, after I have pointed - when doing it that way, there is at least an opinion of two behind the appropriateness of such action. Here, all too often, passionate/obsessive persons make all sorts of actions alone. (If I do not make some particular thing happen in Wikipedia, it certainly is not the end of my life.) 217.140.193.123 21:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


Your comments on Jtdirl's talk page border on personal attacks. Please remember to observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette.
As for your comments on my talk page, I am simply informing you of Wikipedia policy. The powers that be have determined that because IP's may be shared by more than one user, any user that declines to register forfiets control over the IP talk page. If you wish to engage in vandalism and personal attacks, it will result in you being blocked from further editing. Perhaps now would be a good time to step back and reevaluate the situation; is it possible you are redirecting at me your anger towards Jtdirl? Is your frustration with her severe enough that you are willing to attack other users and accept the resulting block? I hope it isn't. -- Essjay · Talk 18:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

1. Please show me an existing Wikipedia policy that says I cannot delete things in my IP's talk page. I have been not a:ware of such policy, and additionally, we have learned that there are so-called policies which are not agreed upon, but someone's sneaks.

2. They are not personal attacks. And, as probably will emerge, Jtdirl's accusation (which you preserved) was erroneous or baseless.

3. I am not directing any anger. I am simply requesting both you and Jtdirl remain truthful and not to "endorse" baseless accusations. That certainly is not too much to ask. 217.140.193.123 18:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


Note: Please do not remove comments from talk pages. If you would like to create an account you will be free to utilize your talk page as you see fit. IP talk pages, however, should not have comments removed. -- Essjay · Talk 18:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double redirects are bad

Please try to avoid making double redirects, as you did with Princess Märtha of Sweden. They tend to irritate Wikipedia readers. Thank you very much, 青い(Aoi) 01:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresentation and such working methods

I believe it is good to understand that some active Wikipedians, sysops even, do not work in very objectively, but use methods that are akin to manipulation and intrigues, utilizing cronyism etc.

There has been the case of User:Deb (who also appears to be a sysop) when making a RM regarding article Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse, represents the case in the page Wikipedia:Requested moves by alleging that the move would be "back" to Alix of Hesse. However it is very clear that Deb misrepresents the issue by such allegation: the article was never at Alix of Hesse and such address did not yet exist. Thus the proposed move cannot be "back" to that.
And, Deb claims as her reason for move, by the brief presentation space in general page RM that "The present article title is untenable. However, being "untenable" is an opinionated allegation and does not have any place in proper representation of renaming need. There Deb fails to present the proposal in neutral terms.
Moreover, in the Talk page (Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse) when giving her grounds for proposed move, Deb says "Arrigo, who carried out the move to the present name, evidently has no understanding of these standards". That is clearly a personal attack. And moreover, has no solid grounds. The answer, predictably, was "In my opinion, evidently Deb has no understanding of these standards.
In that short space, Deb has apparently misrepresented a case in general RM page, also used only an opinionated opinion in general RM page as the only reason for move, and also made a personal attack.


An interesting addition that well fits in the pattern of behavior Deb has, is the following example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARaul654&diff=19436135&oldid=19433916
where she obviously does not have any valid defense to the fact that she used sysop powers to act upon a page she was personally warring. Her "response" was then an irrelevant accusation. In manipulative behavior, not responding to the point in question, and taking the discussion to some irrelevancy, is rather common.


Deb's creation of the following "userpage" tastes much like her resorting to criminal activities - check her attempt to create honorary consuls and bogus cinsulates etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3A69.10.141.71&diff=19610149&oldid=19600621. However, at least that piece of evidence shows that she suffers from paranoia.


[edit] If something can be explained by sheer stupidity

Poor woman apparently does not any longer understand what she is voting and what not - She votes: "For me, 2 and 4 are both out because they are not real names, but a made-up compromise. I would be satisfied with either 1 or 3. Deb 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)"

  • these options were:

1. Birth name without title, that is, the original form of the pre-marital name. 2. Combination of post-conversion forename (including patronymic) and pre-marital territorial designation. 3. Imperial style (Title, post-marital forename, post-marital territorial designation), disambiguating by years of reign or by pre-marital name. 4. Combination of post-conversion forename (without patronymic) and pre-marital territorial designation.

And later she however (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlexandra_Fyodorovna_of_Hesse&diff=19329121&oldid=19324839) says "Evidently a misunderstanding on the part of the above anonymous user. Deb 21:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)" when answering to an understanding that she opposes option 4, e.g Alexandra of Hesse: I have understood that Deb has condemned naming as Alexandra of Hesse (at least in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29&diff=19311432&oldid=19307263 Deb is saying so).


Poor woman shows now as much as incapability to read, apparently. She asks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhilip_Baird_Shearer&diff=19383880&oldid=19240740

When of course she has had, in the vote instructions, the link Approval voting - and to even mediocre persons it is clear that each voter is allowed, actually encouraged, to give a vote to each of the alternatives the voter approves.

[edit] Cronyism

Of course there also exists small clubs of mutual admiration, as false their praises might be: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeb&diff=19240907&oldid=19237248
Those two rumoredly are long-time collaborators.
fairness and calmness are, in my opinion, relatively remote of Deb.

Some good examples of "fairness and calmness" of Deb are such where she calls another one as "loony" or "toe rag" - these are quite characteristic to her certain behavior as far as I have seen it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=19253879&oldid=19247847
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=19100888&oldid=19069536
But it is self-evident that a praising admirer is totally blind to such. Of course it is possible to be blind to facts.

"It just appealed to my sense of humour, the idea of our friend holding down a job as a factory worker!"

"It just appealed to my sense of humour, the idea of our friend holding down a job as a self-employed columnist!"

[edit] abusive messages

dear 217.140.193.123,

please stop posting verbally abusive and rude messages on various talk pages. User:Redux and myself are not interested in wasting our time and energy to pick fights. it is not necessary and if you have something to say, you can do it in a civilised and polite manner without insulting anyone. we are always open for normal discussion if they are done in a manner of mutual respect. thank you. Antares911 10:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Critical message is usually not regarded as "abusive, rude". Also "princess-sensitivity" is a liability here.
btw, having seen Antares' editing habits, I greatly wonder how truthful is "Antares is not interested in picking fights". Regarding Antares' "manner of mutual respect", "normal discussion" and "politeness", a reading through Antares' writings on User talk:Redux/Archive02#Please remove your wip tag after max 3 hours clearly opens eyes to Antares' behavior. And also critisms of others: User talk:Jtdirl#We might have some clean-up to do...

[edit] regarding your message on Uncle Ed's page; He's on vacation

Dear anonymous Finland IP address user 217.140.193.123

I see your edit on Uncle Ed's page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor#A_sysop_protected_a_page_where_she_was_.22warring.22

Please be aware that he is on vacation right now, and I think he comes back on 01 august 2005, but I am not certain. I hope this helps.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that I did...which edits do you mean? Everyking 08:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I was referring to a post that 217... made on Uncle Ed's page. I wrote to let him/her know that Ed was on vacation, since he/she may not have seen the notice on Ed's page.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian civil wars

I appreciate your efforts to help improve this overlooked area of wikispace, and I've noticed you've written several good stubs on varous throne pretenders. However, I'm a bit concerned about your last edits where it seems like you have added the same paragraph to all articles in Category:Norwegian civil wars. A bit more "custom-tailoring" is probably in order, since in many of them this adds either duplicate or irrelevant information Fornadan (t) 18:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I have plans to customize such. To edit a bit at least to explain some individual circumstances of accession. This was an easy and efficient way to have the basis twxtpiece in use, so that no need to write it from own memory. Also others may add individual circumstances.

OK, fair enough. We desperately need a Norwegian civil wars main article to link this together though. Fornadan (t) 22:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Would such best be a chapter of Norwegian history?? How does it fot into the present strcyture of the history article/s?

Currently the subject is not covered at all in History of Norway, so something should added. Anything more than a paragraph or two would unbalance that already messy article though. There is a link to Viking age, but that isn't specific for Norway. Perhaps Norway in the Middle Ages, covering the period from Harald Fairhair to the Kalmar Union would be a choice Fornadan (t) 22:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I would be more careful in using "Middle Ages" as it can be understood as 400-1500 CE. And, were there different periods? such as United Norway in Viking Age, christianization of Norway, Strengthened kingdom, civil wars, stable kingdom (Norway in High Middle Ages).

[edit] RfD/VfD

Please do not delete entries from WP:RfD; leave that to the admin who takes care of it (currently me). Also, never, ever remove anything from a VfD page, and certainly never blank it. That's a violation of the rules that could get you in trouble. Thanks! Noel (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

No problem, my message was just a "heads up" on the way things work. Noel (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Reply from Pudtipong

I'm sorry for my late I have just see your message. For the questions that you ask me, it's illegal to named people as royal name. There are no other Bhumibol than the king himself. These royal names are high, no one dares to name his/her child like this. And there are no royals name the same but sometime adapted. for example Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn get his name form the part of names of King Chulalongkorn and King Vajiravudh. for the second question, becouse of our rich in words, there are uncountable thai peaple's name but also many people was named the same (the most popular name is Somchai but now this name is very out trend will no parent name their child like this anymore0). PS. I'm very glad to get your message. If you have other question, you can ask me.--Pudtipong Nawasornyuttana 04:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wallis, Duchess of Windsor

I am guessing that your message was in relation to the name, rather than the article's content. I do not know the details of the recent move-war so I cannot really comment about that, but I think the current title is fine. My only problem was when the article was at "Wallis Warfield". Rje 11:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] nomenclature

I agree with you that both the articles on Maria Vladimirovna of Russia and George Mikhailovitch of Russia seem improved from when I last saw them. No solution will ever be perfect, but at least these seem not to say much that isn't true.

Why not pick a screen name for yourself? After about 100 edits you will be able to move pages. I think it's important for the articles themselves to reflect whatever "naming" problems there are, and for the names of the articles themselves, a certain amount of compromise will always be needed. - Nunh-huh 23:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ancestry of Alexandra of Greece

Hi 217.140.193.123, I've read your posts connecting Alexandra of Greece to the Byzantine emperors with great interest. Where did you originally find this information? Regards, Valentinian 10:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Those lines of ancestry are basically taken from www.genealogics.org, which has the benefit of automated searches, in addition of being a collection of genealogical data that is published also in several other places. The same data, and much more, is actally published in the long series of Europäische Stammtafeln - and much (but not all) of those are also in internet under genealogy.euweb.cz
If you begin checking the ancestry of George I of Greece (who is the page http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00000321&tree=LEO) for example using his 8-generation pedigree, http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?generations=8&display=compact&personID=I00000321&tree=LEO&parentset=0

And then going upwards using pedigrees of persons mentioned in lines that I already collected, you will eventually find those Greek, Cypriot, Athens, Balkan etc ancestors. Such as pedigrees of Sophie of the Palatinate, Christian V of Denmark and his queen Charlotte Amalie of Hesse, and Eleonora Catharina of Palatinate Kleeburg, Magdalena Sibylla of Saxe-Weissenfels, Magdalena Sibylla of Holstein-Gottorp, Aldolf Frederick I of Mecklenburg, Elisabeth Juliane of Holstein-Norburg, Anna Magdalena of Palatinate Bischenweiler, Dorothea Elisabeth of Liegnitz, etc.

Regarding the royal family of Greece, it is sad that I cannot find them to be descendants of the last Paleologan emperors of Constantinople. Last Paleologans have descendants at least through a catholic Italian noble family, but their descendants have apparently married only to some catholic royal houses, thus e.g kings of Belgium, and royals of Parma, Austria, and suchlike descend from them, but not Danish.

Of course these lines mean that almost all European royals are similarly descendants of the same Byzantines, such as Alexius I, Alexius III and Isaakios II. You see, the royalty of Europe is like an own tribe in genealogical sense. If a person leaves children or descendants who marry into other royal families, after approximately 10 generations, half of the tribe descends from that person, and soon almost all. But the Byzantine ancestry is nationally not very important to most of these descendants, royals of other countries, than it is more important to persons who got selected to be royals of Greece. At the time of George I's election to Greek throne, there were of course a multitude of royals in Europe as much descended from Byzantine monarchs as he was.

Of course the royal families of Denmark, Norway etc are descended all from these selfsame Byzantines. Actually, their descent got a head start, when Jutta of Saxony, whose close ancestresses (through Hungary, Austria etc) were Greek princesses (see her ancestry at http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?generations=8&display=compact&personID=I00020598&tree=LEO&parentset=0), married Eric IV of Denmark already in 1230's. Their two daughters spread the ancestry to wider scandinavia, Sophia marrying Valdemar I of Sweden and Ingeborg Magnus VI of Norway. From those two women, families of Holstein-Rendsborg, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, Lauenburg, and Oldenburg soon descended (see Jutta's descendants in full for 6 generations at http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00020598&tree=LEO), and actually rivalled of the possession of Scandinavian kingdoms. 217.140.193.123 07:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. I knew that the Oldenburg and Glücksburg dynasties were connected to half of Europe, but I never really wondered how many families they actually have connections to. The link looks like a useful tool, too. Valentinian 16:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Hi. Please do not change working redirects to non-working ones. Cheers, [[smoddy]] 17:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are you making these changes? They could be construed as vandalism or as point-of-view editing. Cheers, [[smoddy]] 17:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Please stop making these changes or give a reason for them, or I shall be forced to block you. Cheers, [[smoddy]] 17:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What is this? I am working to redirect them properly. Problem is, the list apparently changed midway.

[edit] Vandalism

Hi 217, if you're really editing in good faith, please find a reputable source for your edit about the statue and post it on the talk page. I can almost guarantee that, if your source is good, your edit will be accepted. Please understand that we have a big problem on WP with vandalism and new accounts not editing in accordance with our polices, and for that reason, we have to err on the side of caution. It might help you to read our editing policies: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I hope this helps. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

It has not been and is not my edit. (I must ask you, what are the reasons you regard it as my edit.) I can only trust in second-hand informers about the said information, and that material already seems more or less be available in talk pages and suchlike surrounding the said dispute. But I find it somewhat disagreeable that you question my good faith. Would you appreciate if I question yours? Regarding caution etc, very clearly my understanding of Wikipedia differs from yours. I think I have absorbed a somewhat different view of editing process (eventualism) from WP presentations of policies than you. Btw, I happen to hate the word cheers in situations like here - it sounds like a drinking habit or something like. Would it be too much to ask you to refrain from overly frivolous-sounding wordings.

The edit war going on at Dublin statues and their nicknames is indeed unproductive. In a 3RR conflict, however, it's preferable if both sides are blocked to cool off. Since the other side is a sockpuppet army out to insert a disputed fact, without sources, under misleading edit summaries, that wouldn't be possible. What's more, the entire article seems based on hearsay and has serious problems with verfiability. Protection and talk pages seems like the appropriate antidote to me. JRM · Talk 12:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of signature

Why did you remove your signature from two paragraphs written by you on Talk:William of Orange, surly crdit were credit is due on talk page? If you reply please reply to my talk page as I do not usually monitor other user's talk pages. Philip Baird Shearer 18:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not want my signature to be transferred. As someone had done. Texts are to be cited, etc, but signatures not. And, I do not want to create hopping conversation, so despite of your habits, my replies will be where I want to write them. Now here.

[edit] Apology

In response to you comment in the history of Talk:William of Orange "Yuck. Argh. Who had tried to make an impersonation by putting my IP to another's comment!!!" 09:58, 26 August 2005. I added the tag [1] when I was reversing [2] . The alteration you have just reversed was a mistake by me. I am sorry, I must have become confused and I made the mistake. I apologise unreservedly for any distress or annoyance than you might have suffered because of my mistake. Philip Baird Shearer 10:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


OK. 217.140.193.123 10:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Track record

Considering your track record of trying to spread lameness across wikipedia, and even trying to get notoriety through that behaviour in the capacity of anonymous user:

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you.

...I'd hope to work together in a more constructive manner! --Francis Schonken 10:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Lameness, depite of efforts by also Francis Schonken: Just to inform that the LAME page survived a delete nomination by Speedy Keep Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Lamest_edit_wars_ever. Censorship attempts have there some responses.

Examples of personal writings by User:Francis Schonken: [3]

[4]

- [5]

[edit] Reply from Pudtipong

After trying to search Princess's Srirasmi surname, I have no find her surname before married HRH Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn. But it is true that she used Mahidol as her surname after married. First name of Princess Srirasmi is very common as I told when I search her name in Google I'll find some of website with people that named Srirasmi.

[edit] Devorguilla Balliol

The page histories have now been merged. Note that with the merged histories, it appears that the anonymous user completely replaced the article with their own, and you reverted them. This could only be fixed by a developer directly modifying the database, which is too much effort. The article is now ready for you to fix (there is significant duplication in it). - Mark 02:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dear,

Please have a look at several messages on user talk:Arrigo --Francis Schonken 09:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/1/7/User_talk%7E217.140.193.123.html"