User talk:Maed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Maed, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] My apologies

Hi. In case it was you who made that edit, I reverted that in goodfaith as I could not comprehend the meaning of wead snippet. Please accept my apologies to the same. And for your information I do not possess any other accounts. Thanks for your concerns. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your content on Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło

Moved to User talk:Maed/Władysław II Jagiełło --Francis Schonken 15:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moving articles

Moving articles is, not always but often, a potentially inflammatory matter. Please avoid moving articles except of the trivial moves without discussions and make sure the discussion settled. The moving sprees create a mess and lots of work to fix that. You might not have known that moving article has much more consequences than an edit. Edits made in error is easy to revert. It is not so about moves that need to be undone. Takes a lot of work. It is very easy to move the article and much harder to move it back. Thanks for understanding. --Irpen 00:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Maed, I was going to say pretty much the same thing, but I see that Irpen beat me to it. Basically, first, I do want to say welcome to Wikipedia, and it looks like you have a lot of expertise which will be very useful to the project. However, there is an illusion which you need to be careful of. It may look like some pages are just sitting at odd titles and in need of moving, so when you move a page, you may think that you are "better organizing" things. In actuality though, there has been a very active (and occasionally heated) argument about article naming, going on behind the scenes at Wikipedia for several months now. As such, before moving any article to a new name, especially when it involves a European royal, it is best to first check that article's talk page to see if this would be a controversial move. Chances are pretty good (especially with Polish monarchs) that there's already a discussion about it, in which case it is necessary to build community consensus before attempting any move. I do look forward to seeing you participate in the discussions though! --Elonka 15:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Even a better rule of thumb before any move (other then some obvious mispelling or error): first ask on talk page of the article if other editors have any comments. Most likely they will not, so you can move the article a day or two later without any issues, but sometimes it may prevent you from stumbling into a middle of something discussed before/elsewhere.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ladislaus the Posthumous

I support your move of "Ladislaus Posthumus" to "Ladislaus the Posthumous", as "Posthumus" is a fake form (neither English nor Latin). However, please do not introduce confusion in that article or in the Ladislaus disambiguation page over the numbering of Hungarian monarchs. In standard Hungarian historiography Vaclav III of Bohemia is called Vencel (even though he reigned as Laszlo), and Ulaszlo I and Ulaszlo II are not counted among the Laszlos. So Ladislaus the Posthumous is simply Laszlo V. Likewise, in Bohemia, he is the only ruler names Ladislav (as opposed to Vladislav). I have edited the content of the article and reverted the disambiguation page. Best, Imladjov 01:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving pages (second warning)

Regarding this page move: [1]:

Wikipedia has clear procedures on moving pages. Other than in exceptional circumstances all pages should be moved by following the instructions on the Requested Moves page. Unilateral moves can trigger edit wars, break links and cause a lot of problems. Please stop unilaterally moving pages and follow the correct procedure.

--Francis Schonken 05:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are wrong when alleging "other than in exceptional circumstances...": moving is just a part of editorial work. Maed 12:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not inaccurate - on the contrary, explains more accurately. Hmmm

Hello. You quite extensively posted such message:

<…with the title didysis kunigaikštis which would be translated as High King according to the contemporary perception. The later construct for its translation is Grand Duke (for its etymology, see Grand Prince).>

Could you please explain me a bit more widely that do you wanted to say with this message. Thanks. M.K. 10:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers, now I know in which direction you are thinking.
I have some further questions:
You stated I have studied this matter could, you please say more specific how (of course if it is not secret ;) )
And other – do you know Lithuanain language? M.K. 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming vote

Hiya, because of your expertise on the matter, you may wish to participate in a "how do we name this page" poll that is currently in-process, at Talk:Zygmunt II August. Related discussions are also underway on the talk pages of his predecessor and successor, if you would like to participate there as well. --Elonka 13:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] memo

design Bulgarian ancestry of royals of Bulgaria

What are your sources? Imladjov 13:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Descent of the Royal House of Serbia and Yugoslavia from the medieval royal and imperial house of Nemanich of Serbia


Byzantine descent of Danish royals of Greece

[edit] Serbian kings

Please stop writting that Stefan is a title of Serbian kings. It was their personal name, not the title. Try to learn something before your edits. Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: since you already changed names of many articles about these kings, then you should also to change redirects that they point to the proper page. Either change all redirects either do not change titles. Ok? PANONIAN (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it was not a title. It was personal name. The first of them, Stefan Nemanja, had name Stefan, so all his descendants also took name Stefan to mark that they are descendants of Stefan Nemanja, but it certainly was not a title, just a symbol of a family. PANONIAN (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
All right, but then you should write article about Stefan, not to post empty links in these articles. PANONIAN (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, no reason for you to be insulted, I have bad temperament, that is not something I can change. However, I have one constructive suggestion: I think that it is bad idea to have link with name "Stefan (title)" behind name Stefan in these articles about kings. The people who read article would think that Stefan was only their title and not their name. Therefor, we should have some other name of the new article, maybe something like "Stefan (name and title)". PANONIAN (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know why you are moving pages like Stefan Radoslav of Serbia to Radoslav I of Serbia? If this move was either non-controvercial or necessary that would be fine, but the name is (as in this case) double (Stefan Radoslav) and, moreover, since there never was a second Stefan Radoslav, you should not be calling this king Radoslav I (this is covered by the Wikipedia naming policy).Imladjov 19:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laskaris

Hi Maed :) All articles linking to Laskaris refer to the Laskarid dynasty in general, and none to Theodore II Laskaris in particular. Shouldn't Laskaris redirect to the dynasty instead of to the emperor ? Evv 22:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transliteration

Here are the Greek names in the Anastasia Manos article transliterated (not transcribed into English). I am skipping names that repeat:

Anastasia Manos, Petros, Maria Argyropoulos, Thrasyboulos, Roxanē Mauromikhalēs, Ephrosynē Soutzos, Kyriakos, Rouxandra (I am not sure Ruxandra is not actually a Romanian name for Roxanē), Kōnstantinos, Grēgorios, Mikhaēl, Sebastē (?) Kallimakhē, Drakōn, Maurokordatos, Soultana [cannot find Chryssoveloni, I am assuming something like Khrysobelonē], Iakōbos, Anargyrou, Petrakē, Periklēs, Manolos (more commonly Manolēs), Alexandros, Rakobitza, Rōssetēs.

This is all in scientific transliteration which is intended to be least ambiguous and most reversible. In English transcription, e.g., Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium most common Christian names would be given in English (e.g., Jacob for Iakōbos), and the rest transcribed without diacritics (e.g., Drakon for Drakōn). Also, kh (χ) is commonly rendered as ch. The letter β is generally rendered as b but sometimes as v, which is how it actually was pronounced in either case. Hope this helps. Imladjov 02:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Hi, please don't create redirects to articles that do not yet exist. It's kind of misleading...if you're going to write the article, that's great, but do that first, then create the redirects. Thanks! Adam Bishop 20:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ruxandra and Roxana are different names

[edit] Moving pages

Maed;

You are making a large number of moves and are leaving double, triple and quadruple redirects. It is very messy work to go around and clean up. Please bring your moves up for discussion. Charles 22:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the large number of redirects you are creating -- notable due to the shear volume -- are not totally necessary. Charles 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

At this stage you are reducing entire locations to tangled messes. STOP IT NOW. You are simply creating work for everyone else who has to clean up the mess. If you want to move something place a requested move request but DO NOT unilaterally move things when you don't follow the Manual of Style, the Naming Conventions, and don't fix all the broken links you are creating. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can only second that. While some of your ideas might make sense, you need to discuss them first with some users and come to some form of agreement. If your arguments are fine and sound, I am sure many will agree with you. But before that, you need to discuss them first before moving pages singlehandedly. if you need help, the fine users above are more than willing to help or you can ask me. with kind regards Gryffindor 14:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It is an extremely bad idea to make controversial moves without seeking consensus first. E.g. the page on Lev Danylovich you've moved to Leo of Halych. You didn't even check to see if he was the only one with that name; he is not, there's two of those. And moving "Yuriy" to "George I" is misleading since you didn't count Yuriy Vasylkovych further up the list. I'm returning the page to its former location as well. If you wish to move pages do like the rest of us and use WP:RM in the future. Your moves are messing up both links and interwiki links, and you don't fix the links you break. Valentinian (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
And btw, Google couldn't find any references that to "George of Halych" or "George of Galicia". This not a translation normally used. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"of Halych" comes only from the Wikipedia naming conventions. It is, I believe, a necessary part of the article title, even in cases it was or is almost never used. It is because of pre-emptive disambiguation, since this system needs disambiguate names for each article, whereas a printed encyclopedia may well live with a few same names. I do not have strong feelings whether it should be "Halych" or "Galicia" or what may be yet some other variant of that territory, but I saw somehwrre here a discussion where editors agreed upon using Halych. Then, on basis of instruction to use english, it was clear to me that Lev, Danylo and Yurij should be Leo, Daniel and George. All these versions, it seems to me, have been used on them. You are welcome to correct ordinals, if you have grounds, but I have believed those men were kings of that territory, whereas others were just princes. There are naming conventions to make difference between such. Maed 12:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morea

I have seen that you have worked in last days on Morea rulers. Maybe I making mistake but historical it is not possible to say that rulers of Morea has been lords, but only governors. I have really not written to you because of that but to ask you ( if you know ) to make table ( before ruler, next ruler .. ) on the end of article ?! When I have been writing this articles I have not know to make that table. rjecina 18:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maed, please respond

Maed, are you seeing the messages on your talk page? You are engaging in actions on Wikipedia which could result in your being locked out. Please respond, and acknowledge if you are seeing the warnings. --Elonka 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You have been asked to stop unilaterally moving pages. Wikipedia has clear procedures for moving pages. Other than in exceptional cases those procedures should be followed. Your actions are causing considerable problems for other users and are being seen by some as vandalism. Vandalism of pages and disruption are grounds for a user being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Valentinian (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I regard Valentinian's so-called warning as overreaction. Valentinian has been moving George I of Halych earlier, at least twice, to location which is the one he desires, but Valentinian has done those moves without any discussion. It is very clear that Valentinian has not followed the steps he alleges as necessary for moves, but regarded his own moves as normal editorial work. Now he threatens me with a block, for doing just similar normal editorial work. Also having falsely labeled one of his own moves as return to "original name", when that was not the original; and falsely accusing with non-fixing redirects, when I already had fixed those (that's a typical baseless accusation easily thrown against anyone). Now that's overreaction at its worst. Tastes of asserting ownership. I recommend the naming of George I to continue at the article's talkpage. Maed 13:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The difference between us is that I fixed a number of broken links back then. You are creating them. Valentinian (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have fixed, and continuing those fixes, were it not so that you slow it down by sending overreacting messages. Now all redirects of George are fixed, and the policy does not require anything more regarding that move. Maed 13:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I gave you a level 4 warning because you ignored the level 3 warning given to you by Francis Schonken. I'd recommend that you read Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles) again. It states plainly: the most common form of the name used in English. This is certainly not the case with "George (I) of Halych". This combined with the fact that you continue with making moves despite a large number of warnings on your talk pages made by other users = a level 4 warning. I've never seen so many moves in any user's edit history. If you wish to make massive renames the proper method is listing them at WP:RM . Valentinian (talk)
Though I do not condone Maed's actions as regarding the page moves, it seems to me that he was probably unaware of the warnings, and just never read his talk page. To a new user, the "You have new messages" box at the top of the page is not always obvious (it may just look like an ignorable ad, especially if it seems to be always there no matter what you do). Now that he's been instructed how to check his talk page though, his behavior will hopefully be more in line with Wikipedia standards. --Elonka 19:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 24 hours for continually moving masses of pages despite continuous appeals from users to stop, and ignoing an explicit final warning. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that Maed has been reading their page and deliberately ignoring consistent appeals to stop from various users. Since receiving the final warning they have continued their antics and are now blocked. Any more of these antics may result in further blocks. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, based on messages on my own talk page, Maed has seen the warnings, but has chosen to disregard them. Blocking the user seems the only remaining option to get the behavior to stop. --Elonka 21:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You also have my testimony. I have warned with user several times and am farmiliar with many of her edits, as I have had to go back and fix double up to quadruple redirects after warning. Charles 21:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been blocked for 3 days for continuing unilateral mass moving of articles without discusssion notwithstanding appeals from users to stop and to justify moves. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You were warned if you continued with this behaviour you would be blocked. You just have. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Number of blocks - information for Admins

This user has received a number of final warnings and has been blocked at least two times. Their most recent block was for 3 days. Other information: See discussions on this page.

If setting a new block, when deciding on length please take into account the above statistics.

To the user: This template is for management of blocks. Do not remove it. Its removal may be seen as vandalism and lead to the imposition of a longer block.

[edit] Genealogy

Hi. In response to your question on my talk page, the website may or may not be reliable (I have no view). But it is not a source for the article at all, since it doesn't substantiate the article's claims. All the links lead to are family trees for a few of the individuals listed. WP is not a publisher of original research, so what's needed are multiple, reliable, secondary sources supporting the claims made in the article. And I don't see them. Yours, Sam Clark 09:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genealogy of the Spanish Royal Family

I see you're interested in the Kinship and Descent Articles so I was hoping you could possibly take control of a projected I've been working on.

- - I'm Working for Him 22:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New interesting article

Check this out: Battle of Jarosław, and please, make it better :) Pan Wikipedia 13:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/e/User_talk%7EMaed_721b.html"