User talk:ObRoy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Happy editing! Kafziel 21:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1 memoranda
2 Hello again
3 Canvassing no longer allowed on Wikipedia
4 Policies
5 Be careful with moves
- 5.1 Hessian moves
6 Something you must understand...
7 rep
8 moving articles
9 Cut the BS
10 Christian II of Denmark and Josephine of Leuchtenberg
11 Count of Vasaborg
12 Toledano/etc claims
13 History of Lithuania
14 Saxe-Gessaphe
15 Please look closer
16 !
17 Prince George of Yugoslavia (b. 1984) PROD
18 prod list

[edit] memoranda

Miguel of Portugal

Wilhelm II of Prussia

Manuel II of Portugal

Pedro I of Brazil

Amedeo I of Spain

Jerome of Westphalia

Gustav, Prince of Vasa

Joachim Murat

Joseph Bonaparte

Charlotte Napoléone Bonaparte

Charles of Etruria

Ernst August III

Otto von Habsburg

Amadeo III, Duke of Aosta

Ioan Alexander Cuza

Alexander of Battenberg

Philip, Count of Paris

Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria

User:ObRoy/Wolfgang Ancestry

[edit] Hello again

I think you should take a step back and look at the progress you have made thus far. You've been here precisely one day, and your edits and remarks have been nothing but confrontational. You also immediately antagonized the first administrator you dealt with. I assure you that I am not out to get you, but I am also willing to spend a great deal of time making sure you follow the rules. Before rushing in and making changes as you see fit, you would be well advised to take some time to read some important guidelines:

Articles on royalty are a very common source of disagreement on Wikipedia. Nothing you are doing is unique or unprecedented, and there are rules regarding all of it. The content I removed, for example, was full of biased language like "extreme inbreeding" (who says it's extreme?) and "exceptionally loaded" (who says it's exceptional?), as well as some factual errors (like saying that Charles II of Spain was succeeded by Joseph Ferdinand, when he was succeeded by Philip V).

I don't need to "assume" good faith when I can see, from your numerous and ill-advised edits, exactly what your intentions are as you cut-and-paste the same information into article after article. If you think posting warnings on my talk page will somehow help your case, you are mistaken. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy before you continue, or you are liable to have a difficult time here. Kafziel 23:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, after going through and fixing several of your edits, it seems you should also have a look at how to create redirects. Thanks. Kafziel 23:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The above "impolite" writing actually speaks more of its writer. Accusation of cut-and-paste is of course unreasonable. Also, only an ignorant person would deny that had Joseph Ferdinand not died before Charles II, he was to succeed. There clearly is some double standard, at least in mind of K, of who are to assume good faith. ObRoy 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So these edits [1] [2] are not doctored cut and paste jobs? And all of the redirects you created that I fixed for you were actually correct the way they were? And it's ignorant of me to say that Philip V succeeded Charles II?

That's fine. I've given you some good information and tried to get you to start over on the right foot. Ignore my suggestions, continue your accusations against Jtdirl and myself, and see how far it gets you. Drop Zarbon, Hipocrite, or Triskell a line and ask them whether it's worth your time. As I was with all of them, I am always willing to give you a clean slate if you are willing to take the time to listen and learn. Kafziel 00:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canvassing no longer allowed on Wikipedia

Explicit canvassing for votes has now been prohibited on Wikipedia under a ruling of Arbitration Committee. You have breached that rule. Unless you remove any canvassing done and stop doing any more immediately you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Texts such as above are not allowed on Wikipedia. The text is based on its writer's unspeakable erroneous imaginations and not on any policy. ObRoy 03:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policies

I know that there are arcane rules which tell use how Queen Victoria's daughters and granddaughters and daughters in law and granddaughters in law should be named. That's fine, but there are no such rules which apply to people 800 years dead. We have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Medieval Gaels) and WP:MOSBIO and WP:IMOS, which are all more relevant than the Almanach de Gotha or Debretts. The recent discussions on Byzantine naming show the Byzantinists moving our way too. I am not worried by the MoS "WP:UE beats WP:V" crowd. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I'm curious to know what the disagreement was about. Is that okay? Thanks.

Raphael 22:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be careful with moves

Avoid double redirects and loops. For example, plese fix this dr remaining after one of your moves: Eleonore Gonzaga. It is also a good practice after you crete a disambig to go over pages linking to it and bypass the disambig.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hessian moves

I am nesting this under Piotr's message to reaffirm his message. I spent a long time undoing triple and quadruple redirects and loops around Prince Wolfgang of Hesse. There are only double redirects now pending the move of Prince Wolfgang of Finland back to Prince Wolfgang of Hesse. You have to discuss these sort of moves, especially when it comes to changing territorial designations. Wolfgang, for the better part of his life, was of Hesse-Kassel and most generally, of Hesse. Charles 04:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding Maria of Wuerttemberg, because you had her at just that. You also had a ton of red links and a *ton* of errors and links to incorrect articles, etc. Furthermore, you took it upon yourself to make an absolute mess of the Hessian titles, so much so that it is hard to see where it all started. Stylistically, the article was an absolute nightmare. Before you chastise me, be thankful that I haven't dragged you through the hassle of more requested moves than you can shake a stick at and for so many infractions of basic Wikipedia policy that you wouldn't have any option other than to have all of your work analyzed with an eye to make heavy reverts. I'm baffled as to why I should be distrusted when all I did was improve a pretty bad article. Looking at your talk page, it's evident you haven't learned so far. Charles 05:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something you must understand...

Look, of course I have to use Serbian and Montenegrin letters in related articles because that's the way they are spelled and used. Same for the names, have you ever heard of related people having to use English names for them, it just doesn't make sense and I doubt they would be happy if that happened, besides their real names are spelled like that. Those people also don't have English names for them, except maybe for parts of their birth names, which may include english names. Also, I will continually use these letters if necessary. Also, look at the articles I've made, I've made articles mostly Montenegro-related and will continue to, causing me to use Montenegrin letters. So have me blocked and/or banned all you want but I know that you will make a big mistake in doing this because a lot of people would like to have me back. Also, I know that I'm not breaking a rule of Wikipedia. So deal with it. Crna Gora ^{(Talk/Contribs/Edit Count)} 19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)3

Must I tell you over again, those numbers aren't regnal numbers. That's their real names. How can that be regnal numbers, really? Please stop doing that, please, because those are their real names, not regnal numbers.

Crna Gora ^{(Talk/Contribs/Edit Count)} 02:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I swear, you are really getting on my nerves. Also, how am I being dishonest? Crna Gora ^{(Talk/Contribs/Edit Count)} 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rep

User:ObRoy/Alexander I

User:ObRoy/Saxe-Weimar

User:ObRoy/Duke Eric

User:ObRoy/Chris II

User:ObRoy/Charles X

User:ObRoy/Charles IX

User:ObRoy/Holstein-Gottorp

User:ObRoy/Oldenborg

User:ObRoy/Nobile

[edit] moving articles

hello ObRoy and welcome to Wikipedia.

Please familiarise yourself with the rules first, especially those concerning moving articles. Some links are here Help:Contents, Help:Moving a page, Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please discuss your intentions and reasoning first. Normally you need at least 60% of approval for a move. If you need further help or have questions, feel free to contact me or other users. with kind regards Gryffindor 07:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut the BS

Just because you disagree with your articles being nominated for deletion, you, a user who has been warned several times, should not go around accusing others of personal attacks. I do not consider such a "warning" to be valid at all. Charles 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian II of Denmark and Josephine of Leuchtenberg

ObRoy, the article on Christian II of Denmark you claim that Charles XV of Sweden is a descendant of Christian II of Denmark. Also, in the article on Josephine of Leuchtenberg (mother of Charles XV) you claim that she is a descendant of Christian II of Denmark via his great-granddaughter Renata of Lorraine. I regard these claims as erroneous. I have nowhere found any indication that Renata of Lorraine had any issue, and I suggest you disclose your sources. Best wishes, Astor Piazzolla 08:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

ObRoy, I am so sorry for this post, I mixed the two Renatas. I remove my flags and try to document the links. My mistake! Astor Piazzolla 10:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Count of Vasaborg

I don't have a picture to be sure from your comments to Craigy but the usual marks of bastardy are:

Bend sinister (a thick bar from top right to bottom left as you look at the shield)[3]

Bendlet sinister (as above but a thin bar)

Baton sinister (as above but doesn't touch the edges of the shield or quarter Alci12 13:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toledano/etc claims

Hello ObRoy;

While noting the possible constitutional bar on the Miguelist line may be acceptable, Mr. de Sousa has a hard time realizing that it is the only legitimate, extant line of the House of Portugual. The reason behind reverting his material is that he is pushing a non-sensical claim that is not even supported whatsoever by an existing or past house laws. If Mr. de Sousa continues to be intent on misleading the readers of Wikipedia, then his "contributions" will be removed. If you could gather relevant info and formulate a passage regarding constitutional bars, then that would be fine. However, Mr. de Sousa will not get away with pushing false claimants to a throne (with false in this case meaning non-viable, non-sensical, ridiculous and unsubstantiated). Charles 00:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Lithuania

Hello, Mr. Obroy, I would like to ask you to add Lithuania-stub categories to the articles on history, where you think that 'History of Lithuania' stub is pertinent. Juraune 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saxe-Gessaphe

Thanks, I'll pass this article to Polish Wikipedians interested in this subject. A.J. 10:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

According to some organisations aming to restore monarchy in Poland, legal heir to Polish throne (according to some intepreters of 3'rd May Constituion) is Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen, but it's often questioned. A.J. 11:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Tnx for the info. You may want to post that annoucement (and similar ones) at WP:PWNB - this will attract much more attention.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please look closer

I am actually enforcing conventions and providing the proper links. Some of those articles had been arbitrarily changed to feature wrong links, some I have created many articles like that, and I have discussed terminology with most Romanian editors. For example, the "prince of Valachia and Moldavia" featured in some of the articles was blatantly incorrect: the proper spelling is "Wallachia", and nobody except Michael the Brave and Alexander John Cuza ruled in both countries at the same time. Furthermore, "Prince" has the sense of elected ruler, not of hereditary title. Please consider. Dahn 00:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me add that the articles have been recently created and are chaotic in manner (some have diacritics, some don't, some use names that have never been used). Discussions are probably to be had about each of those and the names used, perhaps: however, I am doing nothing wrong be redirecting stubs with wrong titles to a Romanian version, at least for now. You will note, for example, that the new articles created on members of the Ghica family were contrasted with the ones already out there (which do not have titles in their name). Some articles were created as duplicates of already existing articles. Dahn 00:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see my point: my current edits have links to both the titles and the countries they ruled. I have several things agaisnt adding "of Wallachia" and "of Moldavia" after each of these rulers (for one, the fact that these people did not rule over both countries at the same time!). However, this is another debate, as most articles on such rulers do not have "of something" in their title. I have not argued that the consensus reached with other Romanian users was final: I have used that to point out that the newly-created articles went against current consensus. I am open for any such debate after these articles have been given a single, proper form. That is to say, and this requires your full attention, we can open the topic of "of Wallachia" and "of Moldavia" after I have given these articles a single form. Let me add this again: "Valachia" is misspelled (if we decide on a form, it should be "of Wallachia", per the name of the article)! This implies to things: 1) the name of the articles, as it is, is against conventions (all of the name or some of it is arbitrarily spelled); 2) moving the article to a Romanian name will not affect a future decision to add "of something" (because: a.the name in Romanian is always one of the redirects; b.moving to a Romanian name does not in any way prevent the future move to a title that you consider proper - ie: I am not moving them from "of Wallachia" "Romanian name", but from "a name that defies both conventions" to "one of the conventions", while leaving room for the other convention to become the rule). Let me ask this of you: come to the Romanian noticeboard and argue your point in case you want to move them to "of Wallachia" and "of Moldavia" - this is a long and problematic debate, with problems that are particular to Romania.

And, if you're keen on writing Romanian names, please get informed of the fact that we use diacritics. Dahn 00:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

For God's sake, I'm pointing out actual problems! A major one is that, when calling someone a "Prince of Wallachia and Moldavia", one would imply that such a person was ruling over the two at the same time (which was not the case except for two rulers, both of whom present other problems - one was prince of Moldavia at the same time as another, the other was )! You know very well that the naming conventions were dropped at least in one case (see Jogaila), for precisely such reasons (which name to use, which country to indicate in title - if any -, which title to indicate first). Furthermore, virtually all encyclopedic works do not add "of something" for Wallachian and Moldavian rulers (see the Britannica), or make at least some exceptions. I am not asking you to respect what I have agreed with others, I am asking you to consider expertise, when you know full well that the convention was not consistently applied and was did not take in view problems related with this instance. And you have not answered my full point, which I resent. Dahn 00:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As you seem to know the case of Jogaila, you should know that it's a very rare exception, and is covered in the naming conventions (see "Charlemagne exception"). If you really can prove that these are as famous as Charlemagne, which is the standard for use of that exception, that'd actually be a miracle. Any lesser-known monarch will have one title, the most important, in article name. I trust there are today not too many serious nationalists for Moldavian principality against nationalists for Walachian principality that a designation which of these two in each case was the more important, will be significantly hindered. ObRoy 01:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer your last point on my talk page: I have those pages on my watchlist. For the rest: the issue of "nationalists" is absolutely irrelevant, and is in itself absurd. For complicated reasons, some of which I have already presented, the convention presents us with specific problems, all of which cannot be dismissed by citing counterexamples. One of them is that of princes who have ruled in both countries - to list countries in a single title would create the impression that a person was ruler of both (the only person who is listed as such in Romania-related historiography is Michael the Brave, who is, nevertheless, virtually always cited without any such title in common academic reference), or that there was an administrative relation between the two (which was not the case); to pick one would be absurd (the two thrones were equal in every respect, and a ruler evicted from the throne in one of the two and awarded the other's never kept the title - he was not allowed to). There are also the issues of rulers such as Tudor Vladimirescu, Ciubăr Vodă, and Despot Vodă, where the relation between ruler and throne was ambiguous to say the least. Also, to get a sense of how debased the dignity could become, check out the succession box on Constantine Mavrocordatos. It seems to me that a "Jogaila compromise" is the rule here.Disagree if you will, but see my objections, ponder, and, in case you still think I am wrong in my conclusions, open a debate about this someplace relevant (say what you will, but, at the very least, the way in which the convention will be applied in such a complicated and particular situation is subject to debate). Dahn 01:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

"Are you not ashamed at all? And, how about you skip the blind revert stage of your pattern, and before doing something, you actually first think how to improve what exists. I know, thinking may be a difficult and onerous thing to some hotheads, but I trust you would not like to look like a hothead, would you?

I have no intention of answering insult to insult, I will simply advise you that invoking wikipedia conventions implies talking the talk and walking the walk (do onto others...). I trust this pattern of allegations will not surface again,or I'll have to report it.

I have no objection to the current text in that article. Dahn 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please relax. Threatening someone like Dahn with a ban is foolish and counterproductive. The point is that the names we are assigning the articles are standard and in conformity with two long-established lists: List of rulers of Wallachia and Rulers of Moldavia. Trust us; we know what we're doing. If you have specific objections please state them more calmly. Thank you for your understanding. Biruitorul 00:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this, Stalinist Russia? I think Dahn's made some solid arguments for the moves we've been undertaking; do you have some concrete objection? Biruitorul 02:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Stalinist Russia" seems to be something close with paranoia. You Biruitorul simply have been moving pages to names which are against valid Naming Conventions. ObRoy 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing to some specifics, rather than raising the mysterious spectre of "Naming Conventions" and expecting me to cower in terror at their mere mention? Biruitorul 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but these guys are generally known by their last names too. It's not like there are hundreds of people named Constantin Racoviţă running around, so "Prince of..." is superfluous. Biruitorul 03:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. Biruitorul 03:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] !

If you have to copy information from genealogy sites, at least compare more sources to actually get a sense of what is used, when, where, and how. It is frankly insulting that a person with as superficial knowledge of Romanian history would have the audacity to coach on issues related to it. You have just recently moved an article on a notorious topic to a name that is hardly ever used, except on a particular site that you keep copying from. The chaotic spelling on that site has led you to produce the abhorrent variant "Mushat", which is some sort of creole written by people who have no knowledge of Romanian. I can see from this talk page that this is not the first area you have been playing around in with such ostentatious sciolisms. I trust i have made myself clear. Dahn 07:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince George of Yugoslavia (b. 1984) PROD

Thanks for the heads up on this. While I didn't write the article (merely calved it off the other "Prince George of Yugoslavia" article we have), I do note that he is currently 94th in line to the British throne. I'll see if I can hunt down any policy on what number in line to the throne is considered notable enough for wikipedia and if the article fails that then I see no reason for it to remain. --Roisterer 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)