User talk:Michaelsanders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Michaelsanders, 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!  --Bhadani 13:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] book 7, continuation of debate with John Reaves

Our discussion had got very off my original post to Reaves, so I thought it better to post reply here. I can't remember now where I saw the comment which I alluded to, about Rowling writing Dumbledore as a suicide bomber. So I can't be certain why I took the comment that way, or whether I am right. She said something like 'it is far far too late to change things now', and I think the conversation was why I took it that way. Plus the fact that it is essentially what is going on, and that actually heroes dying for a cause is a traditional literary theme. 'It is a far, far, better thing I do now than I have ever done before', (er, famous quote by I'm not sure where from ! tale of two cities, set in revolutionary France?) It is perhaps ironical that suicide bombers are currently demonised, yet volunteers leading raids to almost certain death in WW1 got medals. Rather a matter of perspective. But I suspect Rowling is a bit sensitive about Dumbledore's hero's sendoff because of the recent London bombing.

As to Rowling and book 7. I am not pessimistic. She has been criticised for erratic plotting, yet I do not see any major inconsistencies. There is a traditional approach in some books for the perspective in a book to jump about, maybe a few chapters about one set of heroes, then some about a different lot. Here she had 7 books, and although people have tried to draw out similarities between them, I suspect she tried to vary the plot as much as possible between each. Basic plot is always the same, Harry clobbers Voldemort AGAIN, but she has done a very much better job of making each book distinct than have quite a few authors I have read. It may be people are worrying because she seems to take up a theme then completely drops it in the next book, but this may be deliberate. So far (...) I don't see anything to suggest her plotting is anything other than brilliant. But that judgement will depend on the degree of minute plot detail she can seamlessly wrap up in the last book. She did comment on TV that it was going well, but she was amazed how many details there were to include. I think she meant exactly this. It could also have implied that there exists an essentially complete version of the book, but with lots of work needed to insert little detail. Might even have people checking it by now. Who knows.

She may not like fantasy, but she seems to have an excellent grasp of traditional myths, and studied it at university. I think it possible that her starting point was the tale of Beowulf, who I am sure lent his name to Dumbledore. I think her famous train journey where this supposedly began was her idling away the time seeing if she could think of a modernised version of Beowulf, which she had had to study. She actually won an award for HP where someone else won an award for a new translation of Beowulf. People asked her how she thought of her book compared to the other winner. Whether the book started with Beowulf or not, there is too much of that story in HP for her not to have included it deliberately, (but she meant us to know that, she used the name, almost all HP names are significant, so she must have been dead pleased). Now, I would love to get that into an article, but she won't say anything about it until after the last book, if she ever does.

I expect the last book will be much more like the others than people think, as far as its 'feel' goes. It will probably go outside of school, and sounds as though Voldemort will actually get to do some battle fighting on stage. Her prose reads ok to me, but it is perhaps what has been most criticised. I imagine she gets better with practice, so I don't imagine it will be worse than what we have so far, which is perfectly fine. She has always been writing 'popular' books, not ones where you need a dictionary to check the meaning of words. Dumbledore will no doubt make an appearance somehow, but if her claim than dead means dead,dead,dead, is really justifed, probably he will not be taking a very active part. But then, actually, he often has not. He has always been working behind the scenes, and i can easily see how Rowling would be able to introduce 'plans' he has already made and told people about. I think Snape is due for a total character turn around by the end of the book, and despite her protestations that she does not lie when she answers questions, I think she will be seen to have made some very constructive answers to certain past questions. Sandpiper 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wirral Grammar School for Boys and its History

Could you tell me anything you know about former German & French teacher Dr F P Gopsill at Wirral Grammar. Also, at your time in the school, what languages could be learnt?, and what other things do you know about the history of Classics and Languages teaching and the subjects taught in the school's history, since 1931? I would really like it if you could respond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aconnell1993 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Sirius Black (2)

just had a quick look at it, and there seem to be a few errors here and there. I don't see any reason to suppose Siius was miserable at 16. He seems to have always enjoyed himself. Perhaps what is written in the article is not what you mean:The thing is, that the line you put in is not necesarily mean he was miserable solely at home. It can be read as an add on point that he was miserable always. But I am not convinced he was necessarily miserable at home. He might have enjoyed baiying his parents untill they finally threw him out.Sandpiper

Which bit didn't you like about James trying to impress Lily? that's what it says. He keeps looking at her, even gets her to laugh, and then is really pissed when she tells him off. can't understand why she isn't impressed.

This is not stated explicitly, but step by step. James writes her initials, he keeps looking at the girls ,sys so every now and then, gets her to laugh at him sttacking Snape, and finally is shocked that she is not on his side. His loving her is explicit, his disappointment at her not being pleased by what he has done is also.Sandpiper
You claimed they attacked Snape because James " wished to impress Lily Evans, who James was in love with." There is no reason to think that - James responded to Sirius' complaints that he was 'bored' by saying, "This'll liven you up...look who it is...". They then attack Snape and mock him, before attacking him with magic. None of this could be reasonably considered to be an attempt to impress Lily, especially since James would presumably have known her character. Yes, James had a crush on her - 'in love' would be a little extreme - but there is no reason to think that the attack got her angry with him was meant to be an attempt to impress her. MS
Rowling made a comment re Lily telling James to get lost, that women do not always say what they mean. I take this to mean that the Lily's repudiation of James is not precisely what it appears.

Some more excerpts (OOPch28 SWM): James ...was now tracing the letters LE....Harry noticed that his father had a habit of rumpling up his hair as though to keep it from getting too tidy, and he also kept looking over at the girls by the waters edge...Snape lay panting on the ground. James and Sirius advanced on him, wands raised, James glancing over his shoulder at the girls at the waters edge as he went... 'Leave him alone!' James and Sirius looked around. James' free hand immediately jumped to his hair. It was one of the girls from the waters edge..Harry's mother. 'All right Evans? said James, and the tone of his voice was suddenly pleasant, deeper, more mature...'leave him alone'..'I will if you go out with me, Evans..Go out with me and I'll never lay a wand on old Snivelly again. ..I wouldn't go out with you if... Bad luck Prongs, said Sirius... Apologise to Evans! James roared at Snape...youre as bad as he is [Lily]...'What? yelped James 'I'd never call you a you know what.' 'Messing up your hair because you think it looks cool' [Lily]...'what is it with her? said James, trying and failing to look as though this was a throwaway questionm of no real importance to him.

He does everything to impress her. Now, why he thinks it is going to work is quite another matter. My guess is he knows Lily has just had a row with Snape, but I don't know that. Notice how upset he gets when Lily is insulted, and that Sirius knows what he was trying to do. Likely the whole school knew. Sandpiper

Where do we learn animagi are invulnerable to werewolf bites when transformed? Sandpiper 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

'a werewolf is only a danger to people, does not mean that 'transformed animagi are invulnerable to werewolves'.I didn't understand it mean that, and not did others. I don't know if anyone has asked rowling about it. Sandpiper 18:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
found you this quote 'Sirius was bleeding, there were gashes across his muzzle and back...' P.279 UK poa CH20. So Siruis suffered harm from lupins attack as a werewolf. Not invulnerable then. Sandpiper
I take it then that your definition of 'not dangerous' includes animals with a demonstrable ability to rip you to pieces. Tell that to the relatives of the last keeper mauled to death in a wildlife park. You can try to explain that the animagi are immune to being turned into werewolves, but you can't say that a werewolf is not dangerous to an animagi in animal form. That werewolf injured a dog as big as a bear. What exactly would have happened if he had a go at the rat? rat mince? Sandpiper

It's clear that James had a crush on Lily, yes, and those quotes show that. What they don't show is any indication that his bullying of Snape was to impress Lily, rather than to alleviate his and Sirius' boredom or because he hated Snape (both clearly stated in the text). Blackmail, perhaps - "go out with me, and I'll never lay a wand on old Snivelly again". But there is no reason to think it is to impress her. [MS]

Er, so why so many references in the text to his keep looking at the girls, and his obsession with one girl in particular. It is woven through the whole scene that James is interested in how she reacts to his actions. It even ends by explicitly saying that her reaction is important to him. Incidentally, it is incorrect that James and Sirius attacked Snape. Sirius only tagged along, James started it and the article ought to make that clear. James is the real bully in this scene.

As for the werewolf thing - Lupin said, "A werewolf is only a danger to people". Since people and animals are equally at risk of being shredded, he can only have been talking about the werewolf curse - which, as we saw when he attacked Sirius in PoA, didn't infect Sirius when in his animagical form. Michael Sanders 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

er, yes, exactly, so you cannot say that (animagi are invulnerable to werewolf bites when transformed), because they simply aren't. They may be protected from the magical aspect, presumably because they are not human, but they are not proteced from the physical aspect of the attack. Sandpiper 19:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mindless editing with no valid contradictory arguement so far

Please stop changing the Richard the 1st article, the crossbowman "Dudo" is mentioned by that name in a 30 line poem by William the Breton, if you do not have access to this source; then I am sorry, but until you can justify your edit, stick to what you know. Bob2006ty 15:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Favor...

Hello, Michaelsanders! I think that you're a really great editor, so, do you think that you could sign my autograph book, maybe? It would be an honor if you did! See ya later, Michaelsanders! Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dorea Black

The Dorea Black section of the Black family tree (Harry Potter) article, the more I look at it the more the WP:OR issue bothers me. I know you at one time you were not overly fond of this policy, but overall I believe it is a good policy. I was wondering if you would be willing to either: rework it so doesn't have theories, delete it, or have some editors get together at it's talk page and discuss what should be done. (Duane543 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC))


[edit] Regarding your last revert about Dorea Black

Please note that Original Research is defined as something which :

  • "introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
  • defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms;
  • introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or
  • introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or INTERPRETATION of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article."

As far as Dorea Black is concerned, the section stating that "Dorea's son would be James Potter" is indeed original research, because:

  • It is a theory, and an original idea (it has never been stated anywhere on the family tree or by JKR herself that Dorea was Jame's mother. It is an original idea proposed by the editors of the article).
  • this theory or idea is not cited using a reliable source (and a reliable source is not other theories on personal fansites).
  • It is of course an analysis of one of the entries of the family tree, it's a synthesis of various informations form this family tree and the books, and it's an interpretation of these facts: the interpretation has been built by linking between them various elements which have not yet been officially linked, and this precise "link" might prove false with further information in book 7.

"Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source." -> which is the case here.

Some might argue that the "original research article states that "straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data" are not original research. That's right, however in this particular situation, the "logical deductions" are creating new content, and giving a new signification to the original material used. In other words, these deductions are used to "advance a position", which is not supported by the "straightforward calculation" exception.

In other words, the section about Dorea Black is still original research and has nothing to do here. Thanks to people for not starting another edit war again. Either you can justify your edits, or you can't, and if you can't, please do not make them at all. Folken de Fanel 12:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you're not willing to cooperate for the good of Wikipedia, I think it's necessary to remind you of some little things:
The version you're continuously restoring contains absolutely no element that have or can be attributed to an external source. It's mainly the own speculations, calculations and deductions of the editor of the article.
Fan theories, even if presented outside of Wikipedia, are no more than theories, and Wikipedia's rule of neutral point of view doesn't allow you to present these theories as likely to be true, nor to expand on them, to develop them or anything.
Please note that Original Research is not only the own speculations of the editor. It's content that doesn't originate from a reliable source (ie which originates from an unreliable source), and fan websites are not reliable source according to WP criteria. Folken de Fanel 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my talk page

From now on, you are forbidden to write any message on my talk page, especially the provocative and full of lies messages that are your speciality.


Remember, I do not want to hear from you anymore. Mind your own business, and if you try to provoke me again, like you did some weeks ago, be sure it will backfire at you. Folken de Fanel 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical figure images

I am a new editor and I was unaware of the policy about linking to external .com references and have removed them. However, I think the images of these museum figures provide a lifelike reference to the subjects at each particular age. I obtained proper permission to use the pictures and added them to Wikimedia Commons under the CC attribution share-alike license for others to use as well. Mr. Stuart is the artist and should be at least acknowledged in the same way as a portrait painter. Mr. d'Aprix is the photographer and must be referenced under the terms of the CC attribution license. With the current caption, the image should not violate any Wikipedia guidelines. I respectfully request that you refrain from removing these images from Wikipedia articles in the future. Mharrsch 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern art

Apparently, you have appointed yourself gatekeeper of what types of art are suitable for inclusion in an article about any particular person. These figures are not "dolls" as you might be so willing to disdain, (in fact one figure represents months of work and if produced on request commands over $60,000 USD each) but meticulously researched representations of the person at a particular point in history and are included in several museum collections across the United States. They are certainly far more lifelike than most of the rather two-dimensional portraits produced at the time and give readers a more realistic view of the person discussed. I am also disturbed by your arrogance in dismissing a work of art simply because it is not widely known. I thought the internet was a place where everyone could have a chance to demonstrate their creativity. You obviously subscribe to the narrow-minded traditional approach that only elitist-recognized work is deemed worthy to be shown in a public forum. I fear there are many dusty, moth-eaten exhibits around the world that are taking up valuable exhibit space because of stogy curators who share your inflexible mindset. Mharrsch 14:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian branch of Bourbon

I am curious. Why did you remove the link about the Bourbons of India?

At least please give an explanation.

--Malaiya 00:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see:

The family was known before the book by Prince Michael of Greece.

--Malaiya 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bourbons of India are mentioned in "India and Its Native Princes: Travels in Central India and in the Presidencies of Bombay and Bengal By Louis Rousselet, Charles Randolph Buckle", 1875.

--Malaiya 19:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horcruxes and the Sorting Hat

I concede that I erred regarding the Sorting Hat being a Griffindor relic (btw which book is that line from?) but I'm still not convinced you phrased that sentence unequivocally. The impression I got from reading the paragraph in question (in the book) was that the sword was what Dumbledore was thinking of when he glanced at the shelf or case. There was no explicit mention of the sorting hat so I think that it should be expressed in a separate sentence. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zain Ebrahim111 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Anne of Austria Succession Box

My apologies for not including an edit summary, I was in the process moving it down to the bottom of the page and standardizing it. Atropos 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes more sense about the regents, with implies that their consort had some sort of power, which was its intent I'm sure. For consorts, should I include with and a link to the actual regent? As to your second point, I take it last names (such as d'Albret), should be included, but "of Navarre" or "of Austria" should be excluded? Atropos 23:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. I get all of my information from the articles themselves, and the ones that were there before I started working on it said House of Capet. Atropos 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sirius Black

Hello; perhaps you forgot to supply a summary for this edit, but it's a little rude to revert other peoples' edits without explaining why.

I deleted the section for being (in my view) impossible to rewrite in a manner conforming to WP:CITE and WP:OR, primarily because the Harry Potter series does not have omniscient narration — we never really see inside Sirius Black's head. I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter. — Feezo (Talk) 03:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cygnus Black

Hi. Don't know if you noticed my post on HOB chat re the dates of Cygnus Black. HP lexicon has revised them to 1929-1979, so he now dies in the same year as Regulus and his brother/Reggies father Orion Black. This appears to be information from the film set version of the tree (according to a mention on red hen). I havn't been able to pin down exactly what has gone on, I think I once saw some news posted on Mugglenet, but I don't know whether it is now gone or is still archived somewhere, but anyway I never read it. Anyway, we are still carrying his old dates. Do you have a view on what to do about this? Sandpiper 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC) ~Ok, I have sent an email to lexicon requesting further info.

[edit] 3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Matilda of Scotland. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you., Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanders, I was giving you a good faith warning about WP:3RR. As I'm not in violation of 3RR and know perfectly well what it is, posting the same message on my talk page is pointless and petty. Would you rather I report you on WP:3RR? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You reverted the page four times, Sanders. That's a violation. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Your first reversion, of 14:26, March 20, 2007, is interpretable as a revert, since you took it page to earlier content, on Dansbarnesdavies (21:24, January 22, 2007) (subject matter Edith v Matilda). I certainly would not have made this revert, as I've seen many receive blocks for this. I agree you would be very unlucky to get blocked for this revert, but it is plausible. Anyways, please understand that I gave you the above warning in good faith, and have no interest in a quarrel, only in improving the article. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Boleyn

Weasle wording? I am not sure what it mean. While I am interested in that period it is not effecting my opinions one way or the other. I do not care whether he is or is not Henry's child. I am not related to the guy. Currently, the dates as to when the affair started and when it ended between Henry VIII and Mary Boleyn is inconculsive. Therefore, although, the source is evidence that he could have been born in 1526, it is not proof of his paternity one way or the other. Nor should the sentence even suggest that. There is a dispute between historians as to the real accurate dates of the affair. And, even if his birth date was 100% proven there is still no way to positively identify his real father as the affair dates are unknown. Unless, there is a DNA test. Perhaps it would be better to remove the "date" part and only say his paternity is inconculsive. I hope my reason makes more sense to you. Virgosky 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Wording

Michael - just a gentle reminder: stating in the Horcrux article wording like "It has been suggested that Voldemort only discovered that it had been destroyed..." appears to constitute Weasel Wording. As a rule of thumb, if the statement cannot stand alone as factual without opening it with a conditional preamble like Some fans believe... or Critics argue that... or It has been said that..., then it is probably not encyclopedic in terms of the topic under discussion itself. Please review the Avoid Weasel Wording article for some good guidelines. If you are going to add fan and critical opinions to an article, then it probably belongs in a separate "Fan reaction" or "Critical views" section, and not in the main descriptive part of the text, which is supposed to be purely factual and verifiable, defining the topic encyclopedically with a neutral tone. I do not personally have a problem with "us" documenting what a significant portion of the HP fan base might believe, or non-canonical statements that critics might publish, but I believe such matters should be segregated from the definitive description part, which ought to remain purely canonical (from Rowling), and not be infected with outside views without a wall of separation (that is a separate section). I understand you have found a new "reliable source" containing all sorts of original research that we have taken to posting as now "encyclopedic", due to arguments back on the Hallows page. These recent edits are so unlike you that I am a bit startled and confused - I thought someone had hijacked your screen name. Anyway I hope and trust this is not about making a point with other editors who have engaged you in battle over OR and such, which is a practice frowned upon. Thanks for your attention, have a great weekend. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow up: I think perhaps the proper way of presenting John Granger's published analyses within the Harry Potter articles would be to present clearly, in-situ, that they are his views, and not necessarily canonical, Rowling-based material. For example, as a parallel, if we were discussing English naturalist Charles Darwin's various theories on evolution, and especially those published in his book On The Origin of Species, and then presented additional different-view material that was not from Darwin but from someone else, but still on the general theory of evolution, then we would write that in a separate contrasting section. Something like this: "Dr. Stephen Jay Gould reworked and extended Darwin's evolutionary principles by revising a key pillar in the central logic of Darwinian evolution, by presenting Punctuated equilibrium in his book The Panda's Thumb... " (and then elucidating on about Gould's variations on Darwin's theories). So for Horcruxes, we could legitimately state something like, (again in a separate section) "Esteemed University Professor John Granger of the Muggle Institute for Advanced Potter Studies suggests in his book Who Killed Albus Dumbledore? that ..." (and then presenting his original theories and analyses). This approach is clearer and more encyclopedic (and probably less antagonizing) than just blurting out his controversial theories mixed right in with the non-controversial canonical Rowling-stated material, and finishing it off with a tiny footnote stating the page number of his new book, which hardly anyone else has a copy of anyway. I'm simply trying to find a way where we can include your thoughts, and how they should be presented for consideration, and yet cut back on the edit reversion / original-research wars, which would seem to be intractable at this point. Thanks again for your attention. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome Back! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoo boy, I see it has already started again. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

OK I must have missed something about Granger's material in the fury of the edit reversion wars. I thought we were discussing posting material from a published book. The Self Published Source section from the Attribution policy states...
A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually not acceptable as sources (see Exceptions below).
Exceptions - As mentioned above there are a few specific situations in which a self-published source can be considered reliable. These include...
When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; second, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.
If Granger's material is on an essentially personal web site run by Granger, and there is no peer review or other fact-checking (difficult for speculative original research about a fictional Potter universe), then I can see the cause for a strong difference of opinion. I still think we can consider posting Granger's theories in relevant, but they must be demoted to the status of regular (if well organized and sometimes well defended) fan speculation, not expert opinion. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update on the Update

I can accept this. I had the impression, in looking over the extended arguments, that Granger's Deathly Hallows-related work was basically posted on his blog page, where he published his theories on (ergo self-published speculation, and possibly disallowed as a reliable source); and then he also published a book on similar HP-related topics. If he indeed published a book with relevant material suitable for posting in the HP articles, and it has been (or can be) critically reviewed, and it contains high quality deductions based on the canonical Rowling materials, then I believe this is the sort of material that we can report on in the articles. I still insist that it should be segregated into in separate sections within the article - perhaps with titles like "Fan-based theories and critical reaction". We can expand the articles (and improve the overall relevance and quality) to include Granger's therories, not as canonical in the HP universe, but as verifiable logical deductions quoted from a published source (reliable or otherwise), keeping a neutral tone and POV, by stating again that this is Granger's work, and not Rowling's. It is original research on the part of Granger, but not us, so we can post it, just as we would report on any other new research efforts regarding, for example, particle physics or curing cancer. We need to take care not to sound like we are promoting Granger's work - thus pushing a POV agenda, but we also do not want to sound as if we are "in opposition" to Granger's views. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael and Folken and Sandpiper (etc).: The rules for writing articles about fiction are discussed at WP:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and at related articles linked there. Please step back, and take some time to study those policies and guidelines at your earliest convenience. The policy on writing about fiction states: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". Mr. Granger's work would qualify as sourced analysis, I believe. I agree that Granger's work is speculative and original research, but it is NOT original research or speculative for us to discuss his analyses in the articles, with proper sourcing for verifiability. He is not just any fan, so this does NOT open the door to just anyone posting their original research. The Wikipedia policy not only ALLOWS us to present critical analyses of works of fiction, it essentially REQUIRES us to do so, to make good articles. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You have been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on Horcrux. You are also warned about edit warring on Regulus Black. Please take the time to review our WP:3RR policy, and note that a content dispute, or dispute about sourcing, does not justify violating WP:3RR (except in WP:BLP cases, which this is not). This is your 4th block in 3 months. Be advised that if you keep violating our policies, your blocks will become progressively longer. I hope you use the time off to carefully consider your options and future conduct here. Thanks, Crum375 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marie Antoinette

Please stop unilaterally changing the name of this page. There have been two discussions about the name on the talk page, one in June 2005, the other in January 2006. The name "Marie Antoinette" is the one which has received consensus. One editor does not have the right to overrule that consensus, even if he thinks other people are wrong. If you think there should be a change, please discuss it on the talk page. Noel S McFerran 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I know the naming conventions since I actively work on them (as much cannot be said about you at this time. I am also well aware (as is most of the WP community) that naming conventions for monarchs do not trump a universal name such as Marie Antoinette. For the sake of this community, cease your antics. I have no patience to entertain your "explanations" to me when I have been dealing with this for years. You are in the wrong here. You still have an opportunity to turn yourself around. "We" don't name her "of Austria". You do. Charles 04:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dauphins

I am separating the redirects. Please do not move the pages until I am at least done, okay? Charles 16:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women of the Napoleonic Era

Excuse me, but you keep reverting back edits on these pages which are historically inconsistent. It is wrong to state that Marie Antoinette was Joséphine's predecessor as 'Empress of the French'. Although she was certainly her predecessor as consort to the French Head of State she should be listed as so in a SEPERATE box from the title 'Empress of the French'. This makes things far more clearer to the average viewer!

But you don't seem to get the point- this isn't about a change of sexes or even the reversion to an old title, but the creation of an entirely new one which must be elaborate - it is the same on other monarchical pages such as the Queen Mother etc. who was the last Empress of India.

The title 'Empress of the French' also ceased to exist - it wasn't used after Marie Louise until Napoleon III's wife! And before Joséphine, Marie Antoinette wasn't called 'Empress of the French'. It is exactly the same with 'Empress of India' - Queen Victoria was the first - or why don't you go through and imply that her predecessor, William IV was known as 'Emperor of India'?

The ancien régime monarchy was something UTTERLY different from the Napoleonic - Napoleon etc. and historians in general most definitely do not see the two as something sequential! It is therefore VITAL that we distinguish the titles as is custom on other pages on Wikipedia. The title 'Empress of the French' just like 'Empress of India' did not exist prior to 1804 and I am not refuting your case that there was a 'Queen of the French' but that is something fundamentally different and was abolished in 1792!

And I am indeed showing succession if you'd only bother to look! I am perfectly in keeping with the protocol demanded by Wikipedia as are the other pages of titular succession. And I haven't 'made up' a title - I have italisised it implying that it was not a title!

[edit] Re: Marie Louise

The intro line generally gives the native form and anglicizations are used elsewhere. Charles 11:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you say that there is not a Marie Louise of Austria, why is there a Marie Antoinette of Austria? The name was given in the first lines, as is standard. The point of the matter is that there are references to a Marie Louise of Austria but much fewer for a Marie Antoinette of Austria. Marie Louise is Archduchess Maria Ludovica in the first line of the text and she is also known as Marie Louise of Austria. That's why it's okay. Charles 11:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There is usage for Archduchess Marie Louise of Austria. That is just one way by which she is commonly known. Sorry, I didn't choose common names. Charles 12:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German form of name

Do you know if the empress was Maria Luisa or Maria Ludovica in her native Austria? The intro to the article currently uses both forms. Charles 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I do now recall the practise of christenings with with Latin names. I think that it should be noted somehow that this was the practice rather than someone thinking that it is a mistake. Charles 19:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession boxes

Currently, there is no set convention for the changes in title/house. Preferably to me, the incumbent at the time would be listed as they were titled and any successor with a different title would just be listed with the changed title in parenthesis. Currently, with Marie Antoinette, I feel that there are way too many title changes going on. One box should say:

  • Queen of France and Navarre (1774-1791)
  • Queen of the French (1791-1792)
  • Queen of France and Navarre (1792-1793)

There are no interventing consorts above.

Then it should say succeeded by: Joséphine de Beauharnais (Empress of the French) (as it currently seems to stand). The titular title can remain separate.

I think it's preferable to show people succeeding people, even if the title changes. A person succeeding themselves is nonsensical to me. The status of the country did not change as would be the case in a place like Baden (margraviate to grand duchy) or Prussia (duchy to kingdom). But that's my opinion. Charles 12:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marie Jeanne of Savoy-Nemours

Marie Jeanne is the form used most often for this princess. Yes, it is odd (because her sister is almost always treated as "Maria" right beside her), but that is how it is. Charles 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No

Uhm, no. And, before you start an edit war, which from your history I can see you are good at it. I am cleaning up the article. I fixed the reference section so that people will know who's information comes from where. I also added in which historians suggest what. And, if you actually read the article you could see that several sentences were repeated several times. Virgosky 16:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You really should stop getting so angry and accusing people of things. The sources are in there and just because you do not like where they does not mean they are being removed. These are not your articles and this is not your website.Also, you can not say "most historians" without sourcing and saying which ones say what. Two people are not "most historians". Also, in the part where it says "Mary's defenders say" that should not be in there it is not sourced. Furthermore, unless you can source more historians, Weir and Ives are the only two who say Catherine Carey was born later. Virgosky 17:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I am trying to point out which historians say what. Weir and Ives believe she was not Henry's child. How is wanting more sources for historians to prove she is not his child POV? If you say "most historians" you have to back it up. Virgosky 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of things that make no sense. What are you talking about? Are you even reading what I am saying? I said it was during this period Henry fell in love with her and it was. It does not matter whether you say it was later or during that period. Either one works. So why are you fighting with me for no reason? Please source the exact dates of when the affair started and ended. Virgosky 17:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That is your POV. Do not remove sourced information. Is that not what you are always yelling at other editors about? So, it is okay for source information to stay if you agree with it? However, if it is something you do not agree with, then it okay to remove the information whether it is sourced or not? Sounds like POV thinking to me. Anyway, he is a notable person since the Britian's Real Monarch and someone created an article for him. Therefore, there is no harm in mentioning him. Again, do not tell others what to do when you clearly do not always follow the rules either. Virgosky 19:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from now and that is all you had to say. For a minute, I thought you were arguing with me just to fight as we have disagreed several times on the management of this article. I assumed many people would know who he is now based on the documentary, but you make a good point. Virgosky 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would but you would continue to delete it and start another edit war. I would prefer to see some articles on this site not subjected to your edit wars. Virgosky 20:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Virgosky 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing my explanation

I'm not sure why you removed my explanation when you replied to my comment but I've replaced it. Please don't edit my posts. Leebo T/C 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Houses

I just wanted to thank you for making some corrections to my succession boxes on various royal houses throughout Europe. I too am a History student and very passionate about it. Keep up the good work. -Prezboy1 00:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks please

With regards to your comments on Talk:Horcrux: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Folken de Fanel 01:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horcruxes and revert war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Horcrux. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you.

Please note that I have modified the article according to what has been concluded in the talk page of the article: it has become obvious that WKD was a dubious source who couldn't be used in the article (as non-notable, self-published, unreliable, too speculative). Even T-Dot noted that "projecting theories into the 7th book is treading on very thin ice". You then failed to provide enough arguments to convince me and others of the reliability and notability of the book, and you just stopped answering. All you have said until now was not based on any official admissibility criterion of Wikipedia, but on erroneous qualifications of the book (qualifying mere fans as "professionals", mistaking speculations on future works for text analyses, qualifying John Granger, someone who has not proven particularly notable for guessing plots of future HP books in the past, as someone in his "relevant field", etc). Clearly, you've not "won" the debate. But even now, no one prevent you to find convincing justifications for the inclusion of WKD...

So the main problem with your revert is that, while I have provided a compromise (keeping a mention of WKD) which also took into account the obvious and well-argumented opposition to the inclusion of such obscure and unsubstanciated theories from such a dubious (self-published and non-notable) source, you just ignored everything that have been said on the matter in the last week...You refused to acknowledge the lengthy debate which, for now, has convincibly established WKD was not a valid source.

Worse, you've deliberately ignored my request that anyone who would want to revert my version should justify such a revert (your edit summary remained desperately blank).

It is now clear you're working against the general consensus, deliberatly scorning the others' opinions to impose yours.

Now I know you'll be tempted to start another edit war, and revert my edits a third time. But please realize it's not been 2 weeks that your last 48 hours 3RR block ended, and since then you've already been involved in 2 (if you continue this one in a bad way) other edit wars on the very same article that you were blocked for. And that the admin that last blocked you specifically asked you to "use the time off to carefully consider your options and future conduct here".

Turning the edits on the horcrux article into yet another edit war will be very bad for you. I'm sure you're aware that you don't necessarily have to go to the 4th revert to be blocked, if your reverts are openly disruptive: and ignoring a general consensus and refusing to provide enough justification is bad-faithed enough for your possible future reverts to be concidered disruptive.

So please don't think you can continue to be on the verge of breaking the 3RR, stopping at your third, and that it will all be all right for you. You're deliberately ignoring an admin's warning concerning your behavior, deliberately ignoring a full week of debate (in which the more convincing opinion that was developed was the "no WKD one", and in which you also failed to provide any convincing argument -and which you've stopped to contribute to-), deliberately ignoring a user's request that you justify any revert you'll do, and such blind reverts won't help you in any way.

So please, take some time to think about all this, instead of blindly reverting a general consensus and using force to impose a content that only you want...Folken de Fanel 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the article isn't blocked, thus I can't see why I wouldn't be "permitted" to edit it. A whole week was not enough for you to find any convincing argument. However, during this week, it was convincibly established that WKD was not to be included. The fact that the debate is (according to you) still ongoing doesn't mean you can artificially block the article , prevent any improvement to it, and ignore any request of justification for your reverts. Folken de Fanel 18:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, please realize that by reverting my edits, you were the one who started an edit war. I have reverted nothing, I have merely improved the article, but you blindly reverted me in an agressive way and you were perfectly unable to justify any of your reverts, even though I had specifically asked you to justify them. You have started the edit war. Folken de Fanel 19:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC) I noticed that Folken also edits very robustly on the french wiki HP. (folken was blocked 48hrs this morning.) Sandpiper 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

I'm sure if you removed the ridiculous template warnings Folken keeps giving you, there wouldn't be any one who could possibly care. John Reaves (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] horcrux

you just beat me to it. had just loaded the old page, only when I checked it was already the same as the current version. Sandpiper 18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HP years

Another issue we are going to have to address and soon: with the deletion of the Dates in Harry Potter article, we no longer have a "traceable" reference to anchor down HP birth years, death dates, and important events and such. We previously had that article to reason through the years, and fix random changes introduced by vandals and trolls, as an internal backup info-source, and to avoid WP:NOR battles in the individual articles. Well so now our anchor has been uprooted, and we have no basis for (most of) the various years as posted. I've always been a bit queasy about saying "so and so was born in 1980" ... because they are fictional and were never born per se. None of the events "happened" outside of HP-universe years, except for a few random dates that Rowling curiously stated, relative to "earth years". The problem is, now all the HP articles are riddled with HP-universe years that are shown as earth-years, which we can no longer defend or verify, so I expect we will get blitzed (apologies to our London-pals) with "citation needed" demands. Either we have to come up with a reliable source for all the event years and birth dates etc., or we'll probably need to delete them. Something to think about. There is a discussion starting at the Project talk page. Would appreciate your views, and if you can help us find a WP:RS for citation purposes. Such a source would need to be pretty direct and explicit for each event, or we will still be challenged with OR claims. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eleanor of Aquitaine

Michael, please tell me what in my edit qualifies as nonsense. I added a space following the comma. That is a required element of grammar. I had to revert your previous edit which deleted this. Michael 21:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that my edit was not vandalism. I corrected the grammar. Please review it. Michael 21:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I am an administrator, actually, and I am well aware of policy. Please inform me what in my edit specifically qualifies as vandalism. The edit prior to mine (by the IP address) contains a random string of vandalism. Michael 21:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I see what happened. When you went to revert the IPs edit, you had also reverted mine and warned me. When I had reverted yours, it had reinstated the IPs edit. Michael 21:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
What you have just pointed out was the IPs edit. When you had originally tried to revert this, you had reverted my edit (the spacing), and when I had gone back to reinstate the space (that you had reverted with the IP's vandalism), the vandalism was re-added. Michael 21:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of policy. However, if you refer to the article history, you will note that my original edit was merely spacing. Yours, however, reverted both mine and the IP's. Since you had reverted mine and I had only seen your reversion of the change I had made (in regards to the space following the comma), and not the IP's vandalism, my reversion of your edit included both that which you had eliminated from mine and the IP's. Mine, however, was not vandalism, though the vandalism was later reinstated when I had reverted your edit (that had reverted my original edit without any cause in attempts of reverting the IP's vandalism). Michael 21:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This was my edit that you had originally reverted. Michael 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Please also be cognizant, upon undoing edits, that you are only undoing vandalism and not substantive edits. Michael 21:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hp dates

(Sorry, replied earleier but on wrong page).I think you will find someone just speedy deleted it. The difficulty is that, having been deleted it is an immediate candidate to be speedied away. Or maybe not, I havn't checked the rules. Myself, I just messaged the guy who closed the debate to ask his grounds for deletion. I havn't had time, but am wondering excactly what the definition of a wp:not plot summary is, and whether it fitted the description. If this was the basis of deletion, and it does not fit, then possibly the page should be taken to articles for undeletion on those grounds. Sandpiper 09:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to reply until I saw Sandpiper's message through my watchlist. I was going to say the same thing, WP:CSD#G4. WP:DRV is probably the best bet. John Reaves (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a clear candidate for db-repost. Also don't remove the speedy tag when using the hang on feature. This explains it better:

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

  1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
  2. Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. RobJ1981 19:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not unilaterally recreate this article while a DRV on it is ongoing, especially if there is a cached version that editors can refer to, unless an admin approves restoration of the history for the duration of the DRV. Continuing to do so could lead to you being blocked. --Coredesat 19:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that the recreation is still a synthesis of primary sources, and is still original research. It doesn't satisfy any of the concerns raised in the AFD or the DRV (otherwise another editor would not have seen it as a recreation and tagged it). It is a clear G4 candidate. --Coredesat 19:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Those are still primary sources. An article on a novel having primary sources is okay, but the sources cannot all be primary. And to be more blunt, your restoration was out of process. You are not supposed to recreate a deleted article undergoing DRV unless consensus is that it should be, or unless someone requests the history be restored, which an admin has to do. --Coredesat 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The deletion was not out of process because of the ongoing DRV, and I am not going to explain it again. Please read Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I am not talking about this on the talk page anymore - if you have a problem with the deletion, raise it in the DRV, since that's what it's for --Coredesat 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Solution to reinstatement?

Michael - In analyzing the arguments for upholding the deletion of the original and speedy-deletion and protection of the rewritten article, one of the recurring themes I see there is a general distaste or even hatred for "fancruft" in general, and particularly for Harry Potter "fans", and generally for all things Harry Potter and related subjects. It is a thinly veiled cultural revulsion that is clearly non-neutral POV, but carefully mascarading behind an encyclopedic by-the-rules analysis, which reeks of Wikilawyering and disrupting the Project making a point. We cannot do anything about these because we must assume good faith. There is also an clear argumentative assumption that the article contains disallowed "synthesis" and "original research", without really understanding the sources behind the work.

In examining the article, I think we have done this to ourselves. We open up with exactly what they despise: "Harry Potter fans have created a timeline for the Harry Potter series...", and I think they simply do not get much past the first sentence before making up their minds, or perhaps only scanning the dates listed and noting crufty-sounding points: birthdates and deathdates of imaginary ghosts, witches, and other fictional characters. The innocent sounding (to us) phrase immediately creates a tone which is exactly what the "opposition" is criticizing. It basically states, in their minds, that the following is all fancruft, and that it was created (ie: synthesized out of thin air or nothing) "for the series". This last part also carries a tone that the unreliable crazy-ass fanatics, who will literally fall for anything (re: Pyramids of Furmat, etc.) actually believe that they have benefitted the series by creating this timeline - as if Rowling needed the fans to do this "important" (to fanatics) work. Perhaps she did, but we do not need to say so in public. In any case I think the arguments they present will evaporate before a neutral administrator if we remove the offending phrase. Besides it is crossing into weasel wording to suggest that "some fans" created a timeline. I would recommend we open up with something more like: "J. K. Rowling approved a general timeline developed by Warner Bros. for the Harry Potter series...", and perhaps also note in passing that the timeline matches that produced by Mugglenet, HPANA, Leaky Cauldron, and whatever other reputable HP sites have it posted. This tone takes the sourcing and synthesis issues off the backs of the "unreliable crazy fanatics", solving the reliable source, original research, and synthesis problems within the wikipedia article. It may be enough to reinstate the article if we state clearly up front exactly what the anchoring sources are, rather than blurting out that "some fans created this...". --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deathly hallows article

That newspaper report there are theories make them considerable.

That fansites wrote one theory don't make it notable. The theory cited is absolutely not the only one and such reference just doesn't make any sense. The fact that something exist doesn't make it "conciderable". This is one theory on one website. Not conciderable.

So don't add these refs. Folken de Fanel 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If your not willing to talk to me, only to write racial insults on my talk page, then just don't edit this article.Folken de Fanel 23:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

They're right, it is alright to speedy delete reposts. Wait for the outcome of the DRV. On a side note, the page is a good candidate for transwiking to the Harry Potter Wiki. You may want to do some editing there, it doesn't get much activity and we get to make or own policies so OR and "fancruft" are perfectly acceptable. It could use knowledgeable contributors such as yourself. John Reaves (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765)

Could you explain why you think this prince should always be referred to (on his page as well as other wiki-pages) as "Louis-Ferdinand" when there are at least six book-length biographies of him which, 1. call him "Louis", and 2. don't even mention that he had any other Christian name? Usually on Wikipedia we give people the most commonly used form of name. Rudolf, Crown Prince of Austria is not referred to on other wiki-pages as "Rudolf Franz Karl Joseph, Crown Prince of Austria" - in spite of the fact that he undoubtedly had all those names. Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria is not generally referred to as "Rupprecht Maria Luitpold Ferdinand, Crown Prince of Bavaria". Why do you think that the Dauphin Louis is different? Noel S McFerran 22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French kings lead paragraph

Wikipedia:Lead section contains no mandate that the bolded text be exactly the same as the title of the article, and, in fact, specifically mentions that it does not have to be. In the case of monarchs, it seems fairly clear, both through comparison with other encyclopedias and through the fact that any introduction worth its salt will mention what the person was king or grand duke of within a few words, that there should be an exception, and that "Name Ordinal" should be the bolded text. I have reverted your reversions of me. You shouldn't change it back unless you can come up with a better reason than citing a policy page which in fact provides no guidance on the question at hand. john k 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"of X" is a disambiguator, and not part of their basic name. Including it before the birth and death dates makes for a very awkward looking article, and is not the practice of any normal encyclopedia. Furthermore, as noted, the article always states very soon after what the person was King of. Including lots of junk before the birth and death date is both ugly and unnecessary. john k 00:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The country is not omitted, as every single article has a form along the lines of "Francis II (1544-1560) was King of France 1559-1560." john k 00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, and the name is Francis II. Surely we can at least agree that what the "name" of a monarch is is a matter of judgment, rather than one of fact, and that either of our interpretations is at least potentially valid on that limited question. Once that is accepted, your argument collapses, because you have not presented any practical benefits to including "of France," merely the claim that it is somehow required by the convention. john k 00:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Henry IV (1553-1610) was King of France (1589-1610) and, as Henry III, King of Navarre (1572-1610). john k 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
On what possible basis do you claim that your last round of edits reduced redundancy? john k 00:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no point in discussing this further until you admit that Wikipedia:Lead paragraph says nothing about this issue. john k 01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

It was another user with "sand' in the user name. My apologies for my carelessness. --Cyrus Andiron 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive behaviour?

I think your behaviour is becoming disruptive and you appear to be opposing other editors no matter what it requires: making edits that you yourself should have opposed for consistency and citing the MoS in one case and ignoring it in another. Please participate in the discussions. Srnec 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The exact words of the MoS are as follows:
The subject of the article should be mentioned at the first natural place that it occurs in the prose, preferably in the first sentence, and should appear in bold face. The name of the subject is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations.
It allows for the bold title to be different from the article title. Also, I dispute that "[Name] [Ordinal] of France" is the historiographical rule. Here is how Louis X should look:
Louis X (4 October 1289 – 5 June 1316), called the Quarreller, the Headstrong, or the Stubborn (French: le Hutin; Spanish: el Obstinado), was the King of Navarre (as Louis I) from 1305 and King of France from 1314 to to his death.
This does not sow confusion. Srnec 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Your edits seem to be targeted at simply opposing the forms that I (and at least two others) favour. Can I ask why? Srnec 18:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The MoS does not mandate the format you insist upon, as can be seen from the quotation above. Rather, other sections of the MoS oppose your format of linking and boldening. Srnec 20:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Can I urge you to ask other editors to intervene, as I have done? Srnec 20:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You would notice that only one of those edits at Charles V was an actual revert. The others encompassed other tweaks. If, however, you regard those as reverts too, then you have violated 3RR many times yourself, so that's a non-issue. Srnec 21:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Of my four edits of Charles V on 14 April, only two were actual full reverts. You have made three edits in that same period that are just as close to being reverts as my edits, so I don't think you have a leg to stand on in this. Srnec 21:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
My whole point is that if partial reverts are violations, you are a violator too. But I won't report it, instead I will wait to see if anyone else would like to intervene to make their opinion known. I would prefer a democratic solution to this dispute. Srnec 21:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits in HP articles

You seem to revert every single edit I make to articles, even when they are perfectly justified.

Please leave your personal problems out of Wikipedia, and please do not disturb articles, for example by constantly adding by reverts unsourced original research, just for the sake of opposing me.

If you do not add rule-compliant content, you should quickly stop or your behavior will be noticed by admins (and it seems other users are already fed up with your way of editing revert-warring here, like Srnec).

You have to learn the way Wikipedia works. It's not enough to add a non-notable source just at the end of a whole, blatant OR paragraph, and say "see ? it's not me", because the OR stays and the bad source doesn't make up for it.

You have to understand Wikipedia isn't a fansite and won't contain theories and other non-notable fancruft. Go to Lexicon, or better, to the Harry Potter Wiki , if you so desperatly want to add this kind of stuff, because it has its place there. However, such material is in no way suitable for Wikipedia, (badly) "sourced" or not.

If you don't stop POV-pushing and revert-warring, you are going to get into troubles again.

So please, stop vandalising articles like R.A.B. Folken de Fanel 22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, stop adding OR, unsourced statements and unreliable source just for the sake of reverting me. You're disrupting the articles.Folken de Fanel 12:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I repeat AGAIN, stop adding OR, unsourced statements and unreliable source just for the sake of reverting me. You're disrupting the articles.Folken de Fanel 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
For the last time, stop adding OR, unsourced statements and unreliable source just for the sake of reverting me. You're disrupting the articles.Folken de Fanel 12:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You've re-added the "current" Professors to the Past heading, why? And the reason I removed current from the page was because they're not really current, Flitwick could die at any time considering it has only gone up to June 1997. Therequiembellishere 05:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent

I am the real GoldenIrish. Someone has taken over my userpage and is vandilizing under my name. Whatever the vandilist did it was not me. You haft to believe me. Is there anyway I can change more password or start a new account? I greatly appologize for what this vandilist said to you.Thank You.GoldenIrish 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Golden - I went ahead and restored your User and Talk pages to what they were before the vandalism started - around 10 April. In the future, if someone steals your screen name, then change your password using "my preferences" at the top of the page. Then post a comment at the bottom of your talk page that says that some edits conducted in your name between (dates before and after) were someone posing as you. You can check "my contributions" at the top to see what someone might have done in your name, and maybe try to repair the damage. If an Administrator blocks you for vandalism done by another user under your screen name, then you can appeal that block directly to that Administrator for assistance. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slugs...

Hi, just a quick question - was just wondering why you reverted my removal of the word 'inexplicably' from the 'slug-vomiting charm' under spells in Harry Potter. It's hardly a big deal, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it (!) but I personally don't think that 'inexplicable' is the right word, as that would seem to suggest that there is no reasonable explanation for the use of the words 'eat slugs' which isn't really true... (best to reply on your page - I have a repeat vandal who likes to blank my pages, so I tend to keep them blank...)

Thanks a lot, Libatius 13:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I meant 'without explanation', not 'without conceivable explanation'. I've changed it now. Michael Sanders 13:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You just broke 3RR. Not like I'm going to report it, but I thought you should know. Srnec 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your three edits to Philip II of France on 17 April 2007 were all complete reversions.
Now, I have decided that I am going to cease from editing the leads to the French monarch articles until outside parties intervene. Preferably, I would like to see a vote somewhere to determine the style guidelines for the specificities we've raised, since there is clear disagreement over the interpretation of the MoS. I don't know if there is a WikiProject or if the Talk:List of French monarchs page is the best for it, but I think that a vote should be initiated and we should each invite those editors we think are interested to vote there. I will leave the ball in your court for now. Srnec 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Then I was wrong, but then I think you were wrong when you accused me of making four reverts w/i 24 hrs above. But since neither of us wishes to take this anywhere, I'll let it go. Srnec 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Bill Weasley

Do not remove images from articles without good reason, please. Michael Sanders 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistaken edit summary. The reason is that this image is unsourced. --Abu badali (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops

Cheers for restoring the Freezing spell - just noticed what I did there. Saw 'Immobulus' and just clicked delete... Not very smart. I'm awake now though...Libatius 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dukes of Burgundy

These repetitious double and treble templates are just a mess, and there are far too many coats of arms. You have to find a better way; the articles are not improved as they stand right new. Johnbod 01:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to put it much clearer - the text is overwhelmed by three infoboxes/templates with much of the same information, plus a blizzard of coats-of-arms that aren't even personal to the particular Duke. The articles look awful. Are you intending to leave them like this? Johnbod 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Severus Snape

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Severus Snape, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Folken de Fanel 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Severus Snape. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Folken de Fanel 11:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to Severus Snape, is considered vandalism and may result in a block. Folken de Fanel 13:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Severus Snape, you will be blocked from editing. Folken de Fanel 12:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. ZsinjTalk 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R.A.B.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to R.A.B., is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Folken de Fanel 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to R.A.B.. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Folken de Fanel 08:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to R.A.B., is considered vandalism and may result in a block. Folken de Fanel 12:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to R.A.B., you will be blocked from editing. Folken de Fanel 21:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queen of the Romans

Why are you removing this title from succession boxes? Michael Sanders 00:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, thanks for asking. Because "Queen of the Romans" and "German Queen" are the same thing, the former just being a title to denote the latter. It is pointless to have a separate box for each. It would be like having two boxes for a Chine Emperor, one being "Chinese Emperor", the other "Son of Heaven", or "Vice President of the USA" and "President of the Senate of the US" - with the latter example at least denoting a difference in function, a difference totally lacking in our case.

I have observed that you seem to draw a distinction by thinking that becoming Empress voids the title "Queen of the Romans". True, an Empress would not be called "Queen of the Romans" but nonetheless she remains QotR and GK as long as her husband remains so and he remains so until either his death/abdication or the election of a successor in that office.

Personally, I could do without consort sucession box - but shouldn't we then have a list of consorts - currently the box links to the list of the Kings.

Though I prefer the clearer "German Queen" (or my compromise suggestion "Roman-German") I don't object to the title QotR. What I adamantly object to is creating two different succession boxes, implying that there is a distinction between the two. I hope you understand. Str1977 (smile back) 07:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 'Queen of the Romans' and 'German Queen' aren't the same thing. The Holy Roman Empire was divided up into several different Kingdoms: the Kingdom of Germany, the Kingdom of Burgundy, and the Kingdom of Italy. The 'King of the Romans' or 'Emperor of the Romans' was monarch of all of these places, and his consort 'Queen of the Romans' or 'Empress of the Romans'; however, the 'King of Germany' was not necessarily 'King of the Romans' (although it was usually the case), and the 'King of the Romans' not always 'King of Germany' (ditto). The reason the 'Kingdom of Burgundy' and 'Kingdom of Italy' aren't included is because, quite simply, I don't know the dates and statistics for those - Germany, on the other hand, was the main substituent Kingdom, and thus easier to know.
As for separating out 'King of the Romans' and 'Holy Romab Emperor' - the latter was a specifically honorary title, used to indicate that the monarch had received a coronation by the Pope. It is thus useful to denote precisely which men and women held what title, since it is an institutionalised system (i.e. the idea that the title would change from 'King' to 'Emperor' upon Papal coronation was built into the system), unlike an example I encountered recently (Eugenie de Montijo being preceeded as 'Empress of the French' by Marie Louise and as 'consort of the French state' by Maria Amalia), where a made-up title wsa used to demonstate continuity. Michael Sanders 10:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Further: the 'King of Germany' was the actual monarch of Germany: the monarchical power was vested in him, etc - though when there was an Emperor above him, the Emperor would be seen as the ultimate power above the King. The 'King of the Romans', by contrast, was either the monarch of the 'Roman' imperium (an 'uncrowned Emperor', although quite a lot were never crowned Emperor), or the designated heir apparent. In the latter form, it gave no power on its own; rather, it meant that the King would automatically succeed in the entire Empire without need of an election. Although, again, Germany and 'King of the Romans' were closely tied: election as King of Germany and as King of the Romans were usually the same (again, I don't know what happened about the 'Kingdom of Italy' and the 'Kingdom of Burgundy'). Michael Sanders 10:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, you are seriously mistaken. Let's get the facts straight:

  • The HRE consists (for most of the time) of the German Kingdom (originally the Eastern-Frankish Kingdom), the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Burgundy.
  • the usual procedure was: being elected and crowned as German King, move to Italy, get crowned as King of Italy, move to Rome, get crowned Emperor by the Pope (the Burgundian kingship is not essential to this and might occur any time)
  • the title of the German King was unclear, after a Saxon dynasty took over a Frankish kingdom. Because of the German Kings were the future Roman Emperors, the term "king of the Romans" developed - since the Investiture struggle, the kings used it as their official title (as opposed to "Rex Teutonicorum", which was favoured by the Pope) as long as they hadn't acquired the Imperial crown yet. The title "Rex Romanorum" has nothing to do with possessing Burgundy, Italy or Rome but is the title used by the "German King".
  • the title was also used for those heirs that were elected to the kingship in their sucecssor's lifetime. This even continued after the German kings ceased to get the Imperial coronation and simply ruled as Emperor elects.
  • Occurences of the title "Rex Romanorum" in other contexts is completely unrelated to this. There is no continuity between the HRE's Rex Romanorum and the Napoleonic usage.
  • As for sovereign power: only the Emperor as such had sovereign power. His authority covered all of Western Christendom, though it was merely way of diplomatic precedence. This was later challenged by the French legists, who claimed that the "King acts in place of the Emperor in his lands". The German King theoretically was subordinate to the Emperor. But after Otto the Great there was either no Emperor or he was the German King (not counting the heirs elected in their father's lifetime, who were subordinate to their father's anyway). Str1977 (smile back) 12:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken, I am afraid. As the Henry IV example indicates, the title was used quite specifically to denote that he was King of the Romans (i.e. of the entire imperium), rather than only the Germans. The Holy Roman Empire was made up of three main kingdoms, plus other bits and pieces. It would thus be used to denote that the King was ruler of all three, prior to his becoming Emperor. It is true that, originally, the process was unclear - the history of the empoire is like that, I'm afraid. But as it developed, the title 'King of the Romans' was used to refer to the sovereign of the Empire - as opposed to the title 'King of Germany', which was used to refer to the specific monarch of the Kingdom of Germany.
As the Empire developed, Germany became the cockpit of the Empire (because the Ottonians derived from there, originally ruled there, and built their power base there); Burgundy and Italy were both added later (Italy in the time of Otto I, Burgundy in the time of Conrad II). Because of this, Germany and the Empire became, to a large degree, unified in terms of process - the Germans would elect a King, who would then effectively be rubberstamped as 'King of Burgundy' and 'King of Italy', allowing him to take the honorific title of 'King of the Romans' to denote that he was ruler of the so-called 'Roman Empire'. He would then, as you noted, proceeed to the various coronations, before (if circumstances permitted) getting himself crowned by the Pope, which would give him the apparent divine sanction to take on the title of 'Emperor'.
The title 'King of the Romans' was also used to denote those who had been elected 'King of Germany' in the lifetime of the Emperor - it would indicate that the new King had the right to succeed in the Empire. When there was a co-existent King and Emperor, the King was understood as the monarch of Germany (and anywhere else he was recognised as ruling), and the feudal overlord of his kingdom; he himself was subject to his own feudal overlord, the Emperor. In one of the many paradoxes of the Empire, the Emperor would cease to be personally sovereign over the lands he ceded to his heir (just as, for example, the King of France was not personally sovereign over the Duchy of Brittany in the days of the feudal dukes); however, because he was the feudal overlord, he retained the right to command his vassal the King, and could dethrone him if he thought it appropriate. Because of this, the power of a subject 'King of Germany' varied from person to person. See, for example, Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor#Early life and reign for an example of the balance of power between King and Emperor.
When the sole monarch, the 'King of the Romans' (himself also his own vassal King of Germany, of Burgundy, and of Italy) used the title to indicate that he was the monarch of the entire Empire. He would use it until he was crowned by the Pope - at which point he would cease to be 'King of the Romans', and become 'Emperor of the Romans' (himself also his own vassal King of Germany, of Burgundy and of Italy).
Think - to a certain extent - of the British monarchy. The Queen is 'Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. She is also Head of the Commonwealth. The two titles are automatically united - by the terms of the constitution, the monarch of Britain is automatically the monarch of the Commonwealth - but they are, nonetheless, not the same. The former indicates that the Queen is the monarch of Great Britain (and also of Australia, Canada, etc). The latter indicates that she is the theoretical leader of the entire body of Commonwealth nations. The same, to a large extent, was true of the HRE (except, of course, the Queen doesn't become Empress of the Commonwealth by means of a Papal coronation, and the Commonwealth has less bric-a-brac. With the exception of cricket, of course). Michael Sanders 16:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You give many correct details but are nonetheless wrong in the overall assumption, that there is an office or a title subsuming all the particular kingdoms into one entity, the HRE, other than that of the Emperor. The Holy Roman Empire is called by that name because it is headed by an Emperor. The King of the Romans is only the title of the ruler of Germany (since the High Middle Ages) - yes, it denotes the claim to succeed in the Empire, to become Emperor, but this was based on the Ottonian-Salian practice of the German King becoming Emperor. The title denotes nothing more than kingship in Germany.
Of course, the Commonwealth parallel is flawed. The Empire was no league of different nations - some monarchies, some not - but one monarchical realm in (at least claimed) continuity of the old Roman Empire. You either are Roman Emperor or you are not ... you cannot be King of the Empire. And you become Emperor simply by getting crowned by the Pope. Of course, not just anyone will be crowned, since the Ottonians you have to be German King (which later takes the title King of the Romans) and King of Italy (on the way to Rome) ... Burgundy is actually not really necessary.
But even if we take your Commonwealth parallel: I see no "Head of Commonwealth" succession box in the article on Elisabeth II, only many boxes on her various states, from Britain to Malawi. But even if there were, the parallel to being head of the Commonwealth would be being Emperor. There is no intermediate third tier of a King of the Romans who rules all particular Kingdoms but is not yet Emperor. Such a thing doesn't exist out of your mind. Please stop your misinformed campaign.
Str1977 (smile back) 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that was the case. Before an Emperor was crowned by the Pope, he called himself 'King of the Romans' - since he considered himself monarch of 'the Roman Empire', and thus 'of the Romans', but could not, by the conventions of the Empire, call himself 'Emperor' until formally crowned in Rome by the Pope. Look at the article King of the Romans - as it clearly states, before Imperial coronation, the monarch always called himself 'King' - sometimes with the addendum 'of the Franks'. It was when the Pope insisted that Henry IV was 'only' 'King of the Germans' that he took a title which he felt reflected his claims as much over Burgundy and, more importantly, Italy (the Pope was claiming that Henry had no rights in Italy because he was primarily the King of the Germans - and couldn't enforce his rights in Italy - Henry respnded by using a title indicating that Italy was as important, and that he would defend his rights there).
"The Holy Roman Empire is called by that name because it is headed by an Emperor" - a simplification, I am afraid, that is not even true by the 19th century style of Empire. The French Kings referred to themselves as 'Emperors' in correspondance even before Napoleon. The colonial powers had 'Empires' but no empires. Rome had an Empire whilst it was a republic. The Roman idea of Empire was not 'the nation ruled by the Emperor', but 'a collective of nations ruled by a single person or institution'. Which was the practice in the HRE (which was not, btw, it's formal name anyway at first). There are plenty of monarchs of the 'Holy Roman Empire' who were never 'Emperor' - look at Albert of Habsburg, who quite specifically ended the 'Interregnum of the Holy Roman Empire' - yet was never any higher title than 'King of the Romans'.
The title 'King of the Romans' was not only the title of the King of Germany. It was the title used to refer to a monarch of the collection of states we call the Holy Roman Empire, who had not yet received the Papal, and thus divine, sanction to be considered a universal Emperor. Michael Sanders 17:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
"Before an Emperor was crowned by the Pope, he called himself 'King of the Romans' - since he considered himself monarch of 'the Roman Empire'"
Well, of course the title was intended to support his claim to become Emperor. But nothing more. It has nothing to do with having collected various kingdoms, it is just a way of underlying one's customary position as "Imperator futurus". I know the article "King of the Romans" - I have participated in writing it and it absolutely confirms my position.
Look into the article Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor - somebody falsely inserted a sucession box for "King of the Romans" (which he supposedly became at his father's death in 1056). But you clearly see that at the time he succeeded to Germany, whereas it took until 1080 for him to become King of Italy. As I said, such a separate box is nonsense, but it beautifully collapses your nice little personal theory.
The HRE is called by that name because it is headed by an Emperor remains true, even if other rulers ("illegally") use that title to push their claim to sovereignity as the French Kings did since the 13th century. We are also not talking about Napoleon's French Empire. That Empire originally did not imply a form of government (as in the Roman Republic's Empire) is another matter and totally irrelevant to the issue. Of course, one could say that the Emperor was called that way because he was the one that ruled the Empire - in any case, the link between the two is clear: a realm ruled by a King is a Kingdom, not an Empire.
"The title 'King of the Romans' was not only the title of the King of Germany. It was the title used to refer to a monarch of the collection of states we call ..." bla bla bla. Simply repeating doesn't make it right. The ruler of the HRE is the Emperor. A ruler combining the Kingdoms of Germany, Italy and Burgundy is the King of these three respective Kingdoms, the first one being confusingly headed by a "King of the Romans". Every German King since Henry IV had that title, even if they have never even seen the Alps, let alone Italy or Burgundy or Rome. Rudolph of Habsburg and Adolph of Nassau were King of the Romans. Str1977 (smile back) 17:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I found the article cited below illuminating. Seeing as it looks pretty authoritative and is written by a German professor, who presumably knows more than we do, I suggest we consider it authoritative until something better comes along.

The cite is: <http://www.stm.unipi.it/Clioh/tabs/libri/3/13-Averkorn_177-198.pdf>

I recommend especially pp. 186-89. What I take away from this is that the terms "King of Germany" and "King of the Romans" have the same denotation, and are different only in their connotations. They were each used to express a particular point of view about the Emperor's authority vis-a-vis the Pope. As usual, politics is at the root.Eldred1 19:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"When I refer to the end of the Hohenstaufens, ... I mean the period during which the King of the Romans, as ruler over his dynastic domains, became nothing more than one sovereign among many..."

"The most unmistakable example, however...of the indeterminedness in Germany during this period...Lupold's treatise on kingdom and Empire of 1340 defended the freedom of the electors to choose the the Emperor and the right of the king of the Romans, Louis of Bavaria, to the imperial crown. Since the Pope based his claim to the right of approval over the election of the King of the Romans on the theoretical subordination of imperium to sacerdotium, simultaneously associating this subordination with his right to crown he Emperor, every proponbant of an autonomous empire independent from the Papacy had to define the relationship between the regnum (that is, the German Empire as pertaining to the rights of the German electors) and the imperium (the empire as pertaining to Rome and the papacy in the imperial coronation). Lupold argued for the restriction of the papal rights by citing a body of proof ...[that] led him to understand the concept of empire in three distinct senses. Regnum meant the German Empire (reich), Charlemagne's legacy. In the regnum, in Aachen, the electors chose the German King without asking leave of the Pope. In the imperium, too, the king of the Romans reigned independently of the pope. In Burgundy and Italy, in Arles, Milan, and Rome, he presided over the administratio imperii, the maintenance of those imperial rights which Louis the Bavarian had stated in 1323 and which had aroused the opposition of Avignon. On the other hand, the rights of the King of the Romans in the imperium extended only as far as the area of Charlemagne's conquests; these rights were, therefore, 'irrational', as there was no question of any rational legitimization in the sense of a translatio imperii. It was a matter of rights by conquest and history. The third sphere lay beyond this historically attained imperium. It was the imperium in the widest sense, which the Pope had taken from the Greeks and confirmed upon Charlemagne, the legitimate and eternally valid translation imperii. This alone was the imperium as the universal office bestowed by the pope at the time of the imperial coronation." Heimpel, Hermann, "Characteristics of thge Late Middle Ages in Germany", contained in Pre-reformation Germany (editor Gerald Strauss).

And as for Henry IV, as the article King of the Romans states, the title only developed in his day, and did not mean what it came to mean later: that the title 'King of Germany' and 'King of the Romans' were two distinct titles, used often to mean the same thing, but politically separate offices. Michael Sanders 12:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, this whole long quote doesn't support your view:
  • the theories of one author (Lupold) writing under Louis is no basis to deny the usage of the title "King of the Romans" universally used before and after him, from Henry IV to Francis II.
  • however, your author doesn't even say that the King of the Romans was the ruler of the three particular kingdoms. He simply uses the title most important to him (KotR) as he is concerned first and foremost with the German Kingdom (to which that title belongs) - in Louis' day the HRE was already somwhat restricted to Germany - not of course completely: there still were Burgundian and Italian territories but these two Kingdoms were very much fragmented.
As for Henry: yes, the title developed in his day (or become prominent, I think it was used before but only sporadically - Henry IV is the relevant startin point). The two titles do not refer to two offices but to two aspects of one office: "Rex Teutonicorum" stresses the German base and orgin of the Kingship, "Rex Romanorum" its Roman dimension and destination. In the investiture struggle, each side wanted to stress the one element over the other.
If there really was a seaparte office, maybe you can provide some evidence for that? Or you can show when Henry (or another king) attained this mysterious office? We can clearly see when someone was elected and/or crowned German King, King of Italy, King of Burgundy or Emperor - but where is there ever reported a separate elevation to the (supposed) office of a "King of the Romans"?
I will soon also post the relevant entry from the Lexikon des Mittelalters. Str1977 (smile back) 12:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The source makes it quite clear. The King of the Germans rules over the regnum. The 'King of the Romans' rules over the imperium. As for when the office developed - like everything else in the Empire, it developed chaotically, by custom, and without clear starting point. It simply became the case that the uncrowned emperor would be called 'King of the Romans' ('Empress' Matilda, who was never crowned Empress, always signed herself Regina Romanorum during her marriage, since she was the ruling consort of the Roman domains, but not crowned Empress; she is however, by modern standards, an Empress-consort). Michael Sanders 12:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The writings of an authority of the time, as quoted in a modern book, without inclusion of any apparent critiscism of Lupold's writing, either contemporary, or modern, implies that it is accepted as the truth. Michael Sanders 12:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
A clear distinction is made. As I told you, the 'King of the Germans' was ruler of the regnum - Germany itself. The 'King of the Romans' was ruler of the imperium - the entire collection of domains, either directly ruled, or claimed by Charlemagne's conquest. That is a clear distinction. Michael Sanders 12:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Even if the source made it quite clear, it wouldn't matter. One writer doesn't make a consistent usage. But even that is wrong: it is not clear: it simply claims that the King of the Romans (that is the German King) has authority in the components of the HRE even before an Imperial coronation. Which only indicates the sorry state of the other two kingdoms at the time.
That it developed chaotically is evading an answer (understandable, as there is no answer to this): which king where and where was the first to assume this mysterious fifth office (apart from the three Kingly and the one Imperial office)? The Regina Romanorum is simply the wife of the Rex Romanorum, which is the German King. Period. You are constantly assuming your definition without ever having established its veracity. It is a phantasy.
The modern writer quoting Lupold need not criticize him for something he never wrote. Lupold did not support your view.
Or to take your "clear distinction" from another angle: where's the evidence for an independent existence of the title "King of the German"/"German King" after Henry IV assumed the "King of the Romans"? Where is it? Which ruler distinguished between his German and his Roman kingship? Str1977 (smile back) 12:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
He wouldn't need to make any differentiation in titles otherwise - he'd say, 'the King of Germany rules the regnum, and also the imperium. The clear differentiation of the two titles demonstrates the clear differentiation of the two offices. Michael Sanders 12:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no such distinction between a German and a Roman King!
There is a distinction between a German Kingdom and the Imperium.
The only king mentioned is the Roman King (who happens to be the King of the German Kingdom)
Str1977 (smile back) 12:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There is little point in citing Henry IV as an example of the title 'King of the Romans' - whether it had been used at all (which I neither confirm or deny) prior to him, it was under him that it was first consistently used - and it did indeed have a different function then. However, the title and its usage changed, as demonstrated by the source, to mean 'the ruler of the imperium.' That can happen, you know. Michael Sanders 12:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to reject things I have never said. I clearly already stated that the title is relevant only since Henry IV. Also, you have not given any evidence for such a "different function" - it only has ever one function: to stress the link between the ruler of the German Kingdom and the Roman Empire, quite apart from the Pope. Of course, the propagandistic battle died down in time, but the meaning of the title is clear and undisputed: it is the King of Germany. Get it!!! Str1977 (smile back) 12:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, there is no use discussing with you. You simply can't grasp that things might be different from your phantasy. You invent an office that never existed, You claim a source that doesn't support your view (as it doesn't talk about a King of Germany it cannot produce even an unclear distinction between that and a King of the Romans - they are one aand the same: King of the Romans at that time is the title of the German King - there is no other). I can only say: wake up to reality! Str1977 (smile back) 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, do you have any evidence that anybody ever called themselves, or was called, both King of Germany and King of the Romans at the same time? If nobody ever used both titles at the same time, then it seems to me it's misleading for Wikipedia to do so. 66.208.46.254 15:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, I have moved the entire debate over to Talk:King of the Romans, as this issue concerns not just Michael and me. Str1977 (smile back) 15:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navarre

On a different topic: I agree that Navarre should be mentioned in the header of the Kings of France and Navarre. However, since these are never called "Name Number, King of Navarre" but "Name Number (France), King of France and Navarre" - this format should be used. I think that is what John is objecting to. Str1977 (smile back) 08:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

But then again: Name Number, King of France (dates) was King of France reads awkward and redundant. IMHO the current state is better, as long as both France and Navarre are included. Str1977 (smile back) 09:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "No vandalism or personal attacks - I suggest you look at User:Folken de Fanel"

Decline reason: "You were editing warring on the Severus Snape article. This won't do. Go away for a bit, cool down, and come back ready to jaw-jaw rather than war-war over the insertion of uncited opinion into articles. Thanks. —   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This was a invalid block so I've unblocked you. John Reaves (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
And I just noticed someone else already declined. John Reaves (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Explain "invalid". As I have explained, Michaelsanders has received the 3 levels of ""unsourced" warning templates, didn't listen, was given 4th level of "vandalism" template (and I remind you that "adding unsourced or original content is considered vandalism and may result in a block", he didn't listen, so he gets blocked. Reaves, that you have your little favorites here on Wiki doesn't justify the unblock of vandals like Michael who spit at the rules. Folken de Fanel 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting those succession boxes, please. You have provided nada proof for your claim - my usage is the one used by historians. Stop spreading your unsourced fantasies and assertions. And consider where you are heading. See the section header. Str1977 (smile back) 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, at a minimum, if you're going to insist on giving these HREs both "king" titles, you need to provide evidence that they actually had both titles. From everything I've seen, they were either "K of the R" or "K of G/the Gs" depending on what somebody's preferred usage was, but I've yet to see where any of them were called "K of the Rs, K of G/the Gs." I totally agree with Str that it doesn't make any sense at all to give somebody two titles if, in fact, he only had one.Eldred 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion format

Don't insert your own comments into the middle of others' statements, it's confusing. Put your comments at the end like everybody else. Srnec 20:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MIA?

Taking a break? John Reaves (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Spells in Harry Potter

An article that you have been involved in editing, Spells in Harry Potter, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (3rd nomination). Thank you. Jreferee (Talk) 03:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Harry Potter roll-call


Hi there. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Harry Potter participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. Your name has therefore been moved to a "potentially inactive" list. If you still consider yourself an active WikiProject Harry Potter editor, please move your name from the Potentially inactive list to the Active Contributors list. You may also wish to add {{User WP Harry Potter}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. Conversely, if you do not wish to be considered a member of the WikiProject, leave your name where it is and it will be moved to the Inactive Contributors section. If you wish to make a clean break with the Project you may move your name to the Known to have left section. Many thanks.

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Coronation of King Odo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Coronation of King Odo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Constance of Arles.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Constance of Arles.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John I of France

I see that you're back after a long hiatus. I'd just like to thank you for uploading a truly valuable image of John I of France. Srnec 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armorial

I just took the page from the French version, so some of what I put might be wrong. What are you using as a source? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you know the correct blazon for Charles VI, or does LoS just show the eagle? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this the correct COA for Albert II? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 01:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, there was some lag in the page revision, and it looked like you kept this image, but you didn't.

One more - what was Sigismund's arms? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 01:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Mr.edit-war

Your William Adelin edit has made it a seriously poor article, the old one was wikified at least. Now we have just a huge block of text, about half of which is totally unnecessary information on the grammatical structure and development of the word Aetheling, which you have still failed to grasp. Would it be worth me making it better, or will you just revert everything for the sake of it?

Many apologies for not assuming good faith, but it would only be veiled after reading even a small part of your edit history. Truly compelling.

regards --Tefalstar 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Ahhh, seeing as your reply neither made sense nor answered any of my questions I'll take it as an apology. I'm sure you eagerly await my total rewrite.

regards --Tefalstar 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  • That was a bit more cerebral. Just because one poor article is replaced with another, doesn't mean a good one isn't possible friend. And as far as vandalism is concerned, I've never had any interest in disrupting the site, there was a sophistication in my actions far beyond that of writing a factual article. If i wanted to know how to be disruptive, I would print off your edit history.
regards --Tefalstar 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valentinian III

Hi there--you removed the 'fact' tag from the photo caption, but the photo still isn't sourced. Do you have a source for that photo? I'm genuinely curious; Peter Brown's World of Late Antiquity captions the same photo as, merely, "a family group of the fourth century." Dppowell 23:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Reverting edits without explanation because you happen to disagree with the stated reason for the previous edit is tantamount to vandalism and has no place at Wikipedia. As to images, I thought you had learned your lesson with John I of France. Srnec 05:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not the only editor who finds (dis)infoboxes to be a waste of space, but you are, so far as I know, the only editor who finds non-notable 16th-century images of 9th-century monarchs valuable in those monarchs' articles. Srnec (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Sicily coat of arms

It says on the image page: "Coat of arms of Manfred of Hohenstaufen, king of Sicily. Attention: Not the coat of arms of the dynasty! The dynasty used three lions (gold on black/ sometimes black on gold)." Here's the link to the latter. Is this correct? SamEV 08:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image:Maurice

Please do not upload images over other urelated images with the same file name. It will mean that the earlier image is deleted and the new, totally inappropriate image, will appear in the pages linked to the first image. Your action is especially odd since the same image was uploaded by you as Image:Emperor Maurice.JPG. Paul B (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's alright. I already fixed it. The upload page should tell you if you are about to overwrite a pre-existing image. But the format has recently changed, so the information may have appeared in part of the window that's not immediately visible on screen. You overwrote a picture of the Victorian writers F.D. Maurice and Thomas Carlyle. So unfortunately their pages suddenly had a picture of an ancient coin instead of their portraits! Never mind. Paul B (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counts of Vermandois

What is a "beneficiary count", Sanders? And why is it in quotation marks and linked? Or do you just have fun reverting me without reason? Srnec (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Beneficiary count" is not used in the literature. It is an arbitrary distinction anyway and not one well-supported by evidence in the case of the counts of Vermandois. Srnec (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H. G. Wells

Why do you insist on his quotation in the Charlemagne article? What does it add? Srnec (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mortimer

If you want me to go right through this article re-editing it into encyclopaedic format I will do it. I had just completed half an hours further work which was lost due to your reversion/edit conflict. David Lauder (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Carolingians, Lotharingia and Italy

Template:Carolingians, Lotharingia and Italy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Srnec (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pippin the Short

Pépin le Bref is not a native form. Neither is the German. The English variations (of the original Latin) are the only ones used in English literature today. Foreign languages only require treatment in the first line if they are used in English commonly or if foreign-language sources are the only ones available. This does not apply to Pippin. He is never called by his French or German names in English literature. And they are not "native" names, that would be an Germanic name and the Latin Pippinus. Srnec (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The Franks did not become the French. The Franks of the region where Pepin and the Carolingians originated did not speak Old French. There is no evidence of an Old French "le Bref" for Pepin dating to anywhere near his lifetime. Srnec (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The Franks became the Dutch and Flemings too. That's what their language became also. I see no reason why Pepin wouldn't have had nicknames, though we don't know what they are. We do know what he was called in Latin and its a fair guess that his Germanic name was "Pippin." Pepin was raised in a Germanic-speaking district. "We" do not use the modern French form. We use an English nickname with an Anglicisation of the Latin, German(ic), or French. The primary criteria for inclusion is, is it used in English sources frequently? The French "le Bref" is not. Srnec (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
For the naming of historical figures it is entirely irrelevant what they or their contemporaries spoke. John of England didn't call himself John and neither did his subjects, but we call him nothing else. Srnec (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
He did not live in a French or German culture. No such things existed then. The modern French and German forms are irrelevant. The question is "What do we call him in English?" The French have no special connexion to Pepin, nor do the Germans, or the Belgians, or the Dutch... Srnec (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing is conveyed by using his French name. He wasn't French, his kingdom wasn't French, his language wasn't French. It confuses the reader into believing that there is something "French" about him, but there isn't. He ruled land that formed part of the later France, but that's it. Many people ruled that land, like Julius Caesar, but that doesn't make them proto-French. One can only begin to commence to talk about a "France" post-Verdun (843) and even then it is best to wait until the 10th century or the Capetians. The Frankish state was not a proto-France. Srnec (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Germanic Frankish language did not evolve into French, a Romance language. The Franks as a people did not evolve into the French. The relationship between "Francia" and "France" is not accidental, but it is not synonymy. The Francia article outlines some of the ways the word changed in meaning over time. Srnec (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Franks did not settle en masse in Gaul, as Anglo-Saxons probably did in Britain. Some Franks ended up living in Gaul, but most lived in the Belgic provinces, the Rhineland, and the Low Countries. All Crusaders were and are called Franks, so 12th-century terminology doesn't reveal much. "Frankish" identity was complex, see Abbo Cernuus for an indication. Srnec (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East-Hem maps

Hi Michael, thank you for reverting Srnec's vandalism on the Germanic Peoples' article. As per your question, yes the maps can be narrowed down (and they have been on several articles). I put them up on Wikipedia, then await constructive feedback over any possible errors. When I get that feedback, I make corrections and then upload more accurate versions. On smaller articles, I crop the images to fit a smaller area, and in some cases I "negative" the color of the subject nation so it stands out better. Most editors seem to appreciate the maps, but there are about 2 or 3 who just seem to hate them (Srnec included). I'm not sure what their problems are, but with most other editors we've reached workable compromises that improve the articles and the maps. Take a look at the Byzantine article for a great example. Srnec on the other hand, decides to just call them worthless or "vanity" maps and deletes them. That's definitely not conductive to compromise!

Anyway, thank you for reverting his vandalism. And I read your User page. Looks like you and I have a lot of beliefs in common! Keep up the good work. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, Michael. I just replaced the East-Hem maps on the Germanic Peoples' page with more zoomed-in maps of Europe, which I had uploaded a while back as part of a compromise with another editor. These actual maps are set to be updated soon. I'm happy to do the same for any articles where the editors request it. Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Provence

Your move of that article smacks of WP:POINT when you don't bother to move the other counts of Provence or to fix redirects and you incorrectly identify the language of "Ramon Berenguer" as Spanish (it's Catalan). Considering that he was a Catalan and that the form "Ramon Berenguer" is common in English sources, there is no problem with either version, but all redirects must be correct and the all the counts of Provence should be standardised. Srnec (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the moves. I believe the article is back where it started. Please don't move it without discussion. I suggest following the Wikipedia:Requested moves process will be the easiest way to generate such discussion. Obviously I won't close any requested move. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louis IX of France

I spent quite a bit of time working on the Louis IX article, and you did a massive revert.[1] Please explain? --Elonka 17:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the images because they don't have proper source information. Both of them are already up for deletion at the Commons. On the Wikipedia article, we should stick with a high-quality image that's been properly sourced, rather than something questionable. --Elonka 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the pictures are of high quality, and it would be nice if we could use them. But Wikipedia is very strict about image sourcing. Since it's not clear where the images came from or what their copyright is, we really shouldn't be using them. If you can find a similar image though where the copyright status is more clear, then we could use that image. For example, can you find an image where we know the name of the photographer, and the date that the image was made? Can we get written permission from the copyright-holder/photographer, that the image can be used under a free license? --Elonka 17:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louis-Philippe

Hi,

I don't understand why you'd want to list Napoleon III as Louis-Philippe's successor. While he did come to power the same year the King was deposed, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte was definitely not Louis-Philippe's immediate successor, as there was a gap of several months. Moreover, he came to power as President, not as Emperor. IMHO, listing him in the infobox is confusing. Best regards, Wedineinheck 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but being the next monarch still does not make him an immediate successor to Louis-Philippe. Best regards, Wedineinheck 07:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I keep thinking that it makes no sense at all. Infoboxes should list immediate de facto or de jure successors. I suggest we discuss this on the talk page before you edit it back. Cheers, Wedineinheck 07:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles X

Hi,

please reread yourself; you were including this in the infobox :

  • Successor Louis XIX
  • De Jure Louis XIX

Unless that makes sense (if it does, please explain it to me), you kept putting back a glaring mistake. I am including Louis XIX and Henri V for the sake of a legitimist point of view, but these two guys (not that I have anything against them) are generally not considered to have actually reigned, except by hardcore monarchists, and are not included in most lines of succession; nor do most people consider that Napoleon II actually was Emperor of the french. Louis XVII is another matter, given the two years-length of his fictional reign and his status as a symbolical historical figure. I really wouldn't want to start an edit war with you, especially as I included Louis XIX and Henri V in order to find a compromise with you (and maybe give these poor fellows a little credit). Cheers, Wedineinheck (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles I (aka Charles V) and "Spain"

Just for the heck of it, please argue why the use of “Spain” in the Charles V article is an anachronism. Please do so in view of you stating to "detest people who don’t explain." And please argue in view of articles such as Sancho III of Navarre, Spain and innumerable other articles that position the idea of Spain x hundreds of years (I’m not even counting the Romans) before Charles V – not to mention uncounted books that refer to “Spain” in contexts preceding Charles. To quote the Spain article: “Isabella and Ferdinand centralised royal power at the expense of local nobility, and the word España - whose root is the ancient name "Hispania" - began to be used to designate the whole of the two kingdoms.” Until you convincingly argue that all these sources are wrong, please refrain from undoing a perfectly reasonable edit. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What about Leon, Navarre, etc.?? Second, pls respond on this talk page, or on the article talk page, before changing a perfectly reasonable edit repeatedly. -- Iterator12n Talk 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. -- Iterator12n Talk 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact the first monarch to use the title "King of Spain" was Philip II, upon his ascension to the Portuguese throne. He did indeed rule over all "Spain" (then meaning the Iberian peninsula) and the name stuck after Portugal became independent again.
One could well argue that there was no politically unified Spain until the Bourbons anyhow (when the political institutions and separate laws of Aragon and associated realms were supressed) but in any case, it's very clear that Charles never used that title nor that any state of that name existed yet in his time. --Sugaar 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, Sugaar, which is more than can be said about Michaelsanders. (As somebody said, Wikipedia, we all, is the domain of pedants, however, pedantism with shallowness makes for an insufferable combination.) Re. substance, it’s a pity that you don’t answer my points. Besides, my formulation is "ruled Spain," avoiding anything such as Charles himself saying that he was King of Spain, or claiming that there was a Crown of Spain, or claiming that Spain was politically unified. (If the measure of political unification were used, there would be say no Germany or Italy until the 19th c. – now that would wake up the general reader of Wikipedia!) Finally, we should not overlook that we try to write Wikipedia for the general public. There is room for “crowns” and other precision down an article but the leader section should be introductory in nature; in this sense, for example, Charles “V” is acceptable, even if Charles himself did not use the designation, nor did any of his contemporaries. That said, I will let the present edit stand as a monument to insufferable pedants. -- Iterator12n Talk 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just like to point something out. Every other encyclopedia in existance lists Charles as King of Spain, so why not Wikipedia? Also, a book I read called The Life and Times of Martin Luther stated in a letter written either by Charles or on his behalf called him "Emperor elect of the Romans, King of Germany, Spain, the Two Sicilies," etc. Emperor001 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

After you deleting my response to the above msg: Thought you didn't like people talking behind your back. Smile. -- Iterator12n Talk 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin?

Isn't it time you were one? Deb (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not interested? Deb (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy to nominate you. It's a more daunting process than it used to be, but I don't have any doubts about your ability. Deb (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay - now is the hour!
Deb would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Michaelsanders to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Michaelsanders. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Think I've got it right now... Deb (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, please be aware that I have added commentary to the talk page of your RfA. In view of our recent interactions, this should not come as a surprise. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Michael. I'm sorry it doesn't seem to be going too well. I still stand by everything I've said about you - I think you will make a great admin, and I have no doubt that day will come, but maybe not just yet, and maybe it was rash of me to push you into the application before I canvassed opinion. It seems like there are two groups of people in the "oppose" camp: those who don't actually know you and have been put off by your user page - I don't understand that myself, because I think it's nice to see honesty, but maybe that's my "Britishness" coming out. Then there is the much smaller group who have rubbed up against you at some time or other. I don't think there is much point worrying about the latter, as every conscientious editor has that problem sooner or later. The rest you can win over, and there are obviously a few pointers here for the future. If this nomination is unsuccessful - and I'm afraid I'm not holding out much hope now - we can always try again in a few months (if you haven't been put off for life). Deb (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you want me to close it and put you out of your misery? Secretlondon (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Michael, I think this is just a snowball effect where people are following other people (unfortunately, no one was following me). I hope you won't be put off, because I think it's just a case of people having a false image of you. Deb (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm more disappointed than you are :) Deb (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

Hi there. I just closed your RFA early per WP:SNOW. I know this can be a stressful time, and if you need help with anything, feel free to contact me. I also suggest you look over the opposer's comments to see what you need to improve. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 16:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination of User:Michaelsanders/Dates in Harry Potter

User:Michaelsanders/Dates in Harry Potter, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Michaelsanders/Dates in Harry Potter and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Michaelsanders/Dates in Harry Potter during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AvruchTalk 17:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have closed this MfD discussion as Keep. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard of Italy

Sorry for implying in my edit summary that you had inserted the unnecessary heading. I knew it wasn't you. Srnec (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marquesses of Montferrat

Your slavish adherence to the manual of style can be ruinous sometimes. Did it occur to you that perhaps "marquess" is not the most common rendering of their title? Why not margrave or marquis, which are both probably more common? Now Wikipedia has these articles under a modern English (British) title. The manual of style is a just a guide that can be ignored when it doesn't lead to the most obvious solution. In this case we had a system for all margraves save one. I fixed it. If most editors who had acutally worked on the margraves of Montferrat had been comfortable with the titles as they were, could that not have been a clue? Srnec (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that you yourself ignored the MoS when you moved Conrad and Boniface I, who both had higher titles than margrave. And when you kept the article at Aleramo, which is not English, instead of Aleram. I reiterate: the MoS is just a guideline, sometimes it must be ignored. Srnec (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for sounding uncivil, but I do not abide by the MoS when it is not helpful. It is not a set of rules, but a "manual of style" from which editors may deviate when it is better. The fact is that "marquess" is rare in literature on the Middle Ages. Marquis and margrave are much more common in English sources. It doesn't matter what the "English" form is, marquis and margrave are English insofar as they are used in English works as English words. A simple google search shows this clearly: "marquess of Montferrat" is much rarer than the alternatives. Some of the articles have seen substantial editing consider the subjects and I doubt those editors think your moves are an improvement. Furthermore, I was not asking you to acutally move the Conrad article. I was trying to demonstrate that adhering to the MoS leads to bizarre results sometimes, as when a figure universally known as "Conrad of Montferrat" becomes "Conrad I of Jerusalem", a kingdom to which he was never even crowned. I will try to bring other editors into this discussion at Talk:Rulers of Montferrat so I would urge you to find editors who may be interested in this topic and inform them of the discussion I will be presently opening. Srnec (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] They never called themselves his heirs, or used the title "Emperor of the Romans".

In no list anywhere but wikipedia, is the imperial title represented. I'll vouch for Juan-Carlos being rightful heir of Jerusalem, but not Rome. The only imperial title assumed by the Spaniards, was used in the High Middle Ages (e.g. Alfonso of Castile) and the time Mister Habsburg took over the country. Please put it into context and not give undue weight to the situation! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marie Antoinette

Michaelsanders,

Being rather new with this, I am not sure of how to get in touch with you about latest edits in the article on Marie Antoinette. If this is the correct way to talk to you, please let me know. I have been reading & re-reading the article & do not agree with a few points. For instance, I cannot understand the correction in the spelling of Marie Antoinette's fourth child. Marie Sophie Hélène Béatrice is her name in French and, since she is a royal daughter of France, why should "Béatrice" be changed to "Béatrix"?

The article is long & I keep on finding details that should be changed/corrected; however, I do not want to sound arrogant!

FW Frania W. (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

74.79.146.8 (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Michaelsanders,

What my "new with this" meant is that I am not sure on how to leave msgs to someone. RE the first one I left for you, I had been working on the French WP & did not realize that I should sign again when going to the English language WP, so my signature was anonymous instead of my name. Please be patient & I shall eventually get the hang of it.

I wrote that the article on Marie Antoinette is long, not "too" long. It takes a while to read, re-read & check some facts (for instance the title for the comtesse/duchesse de Polignac), so I am working on it a few paragraphs at a time.

Frania W. (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Joanna was Queen or Aragon

Michaelsanders,

Hi. I have changed again the article about Joanna of Castile, because your redaction has several mistakes:

1.- The word "Cortes" is a proper name of an institution and it must begin with capital letter: Please, see Manual of style. If you write "cortes", Spaniards understand "courts" or "cuts"; in fact, Spanish parliament's name is "Cortes Generales". You can see this capitalization in any book in Spanish language.

2.- You have written that Queen Joanna was never monarch of Aragon and the succession there was passed immediately to Charles by the Cortes. This is absolutely false.

Have you read the royal intitulatio?, In this page you will see some paragraphs as:

(Apr 1516) Doña Juana y don Carlos su hijo, reina y rey de Castilla, de León, de Aragón, de las Dos Sicilias, de Jerusalén, de Navarra, de Granada, de Toledo, de Valencia, de Galicia, de Mallorca, de Sevilla, de Cerdeña, de Córdoba, de Córcega, de Murcia, de Jaén, de los Algarves, de Algeciras, de Gibraltar, de las islas Canarias, de las Islas, Indias y Tierra Firme del mar Océano, &c.

(Apr 1542) Carolus , Divina favente clemencia, Romanorum imperator, semper augustus, Rex Germaniae; Joanna, eius mater, et idem Carolus, Dei gratia, Reyes Castelle, Aragonum utriusque, Siciiae, Hierusalem, Ungariae, Dalmatiae, Croatie, Legionis, Navarrae, Granatae, Toleti, Valenciae,Gallecie, Maiosicarum, Hispalis, Sardiniae, Corsicae, Murciae, Gienis, Algarbic, Algezirae, Gibraltaris, inscularum Cunariae nec non Indiarum insularum et terre firme mares oceani, &c.

If she was not queen of Aragon, why does she show up as queen in the royal titles?


And another matter, How do you explain that in the Aragonese coins, Joanna and Charles should appear together? . The fact is that the institutions recognized them as kings to mint them in the coins. Please see this coin [2] How do you explain that you read IOANA ET KAROLVS REX ARAGON?

You advocate that the kingdom of Aragon did not permit inheritance by females; well this is true, but in 1502, the kingdom did an exception with the princess Joanna, and they swore her as heiress (not to husband Philip) of her father King Fernando II.
«Que los quatro Braços de la Corte general deste Reyno, avida entre si deliberación y diligente examen, por ellos y por sus sucessores juravan por Dios sobre la Cruz de Nuestro Señor Jesu Christo y los Santos quatro Evangelios delante dellos puestos, y por ellos y cada uno dellos manualmente tocados, a la Ilustrísima Señora Doña Juana, Princesa y Archiduquesa, primogénita, fija legítima y natural del Señor Rey, que la tenían y tendrían, avían y avrían en y por primogénita de Aragón durante la larga y bienaventurada vida del Señor Rey, y después de sus bienaventurados días, en Reina y por Reina y Señora suya natural, y que como a tal la obedecerían y guardarían fidelidad de la manera sobredicha, como vasallos naturales devían y eran tenidos, y assí mesmo al Ilustrísimo Señor Don Felipe, Príncipe, Archiduque de Austria y Duque de Borgoña, como a legítimo marido de la dicha Ilustrísima Doña Juana,durante el dicho matrimonio tan solamente. Mas si a Nuestro Señor Dios placía dar al Señor Rey fijo o fijos masclos legítimos y de legítimo matrimonio procreados, que aquella jura y actos en ella contenidos fuessen avidos por no hechos».

I wrote the text according to sources that you have erased, Do you defend thus your reasoning?. If you read the sources that I put here [3] [4] [5] and you understand the Spanish language, you will know that I have not been wrong, but if you do not understand Spanish language, you will be able to write difficultly this article with responsibly and reliability.

3.- It seems that you do not know neither the Agreement of Segovia (1475) nor Agreement of Villafáfila. Please read this article [6]. Thereby Ferdinand V was king of Castile during the his wife's life, and he cease when his wife was dead, and he became regent (governor) not king of Castile again. Furthermore, her husband did not become king until July 12, 1506; you will see that in Aug 1505 the royal intitulatio was
Doña Juana por la graçia de Dios reyna de Castilla, de Leon, de Granada, de Toledo, de Galizia, de Seuilla, de Cordoua, de Murçia, de Jahen, de los Algarues, de Algesira, de Gibraltar, e de las yslas de Canaria, señora de Vizcaya e de Molina, prinçesa de Aragon e de Siçilia, archiduquesa de Avstria, duquesa de Borgoña etc.
Philip's name doesn't appear, because of he was not a king, only Queen's husband.


4.-Lastly, Joanna was Queen of Aragon, but she did not reign and did not govern; her son interested about keeping her locked up, since she was the legitimate queen. You should read all the sources and when you finish, you should verify if the draft really adjusts to detailed references.

Bye. Trasamundo (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Joanna of Castile

Yes, Joanna wa Queen regnant of Castile in name only; but then that was true of Queen Maria I of Portugal (post-1792) & King George III of the UK (post-1811) etc. Do we put de jure on their articles aswell? GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop attacking all of my contributions

I am more than another IP address, thanks. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Loxley I presume?

Hello Michael, there's something familiar about that anon user (24.255.11.149). His views seem very similiar to another departed User. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I could prove it, but an editor named Lord Loxley made similiar postings at talk: List of English monarchs (take a peek). GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titles of Charles V

Hi there. I noticed you added to Charles V titles those of "King of Navarre" and "King of Granada", yet these two territories were actually anexed to Castile upon their conquest. they might be adressed as "kingdoms" but that was also the case of other Castilian territories like Seville or Murcia. Furthermore the legitimate King of Navarre still ruled in the North over an, at least formally, sovereign country, so this at least needs an explanatory note. --Sugaar (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't have that right: Aragon was a federative monarchy, where each realm had its own separate institutions, Castile was centralized instead (exception made of the Basque provinces). Some provinces of Castile were "kingdoms" by name (Murcia, Seville and surely others, not sure right now) and that was the status of the Kingdom of Granada after 1492: a mere province. The status of Navarre instead was comparable to that of the other Basque provinces, with minor differences only.
In relation to Navarre it's quite questionable if the Cortes could decide anything under gunpoint. But in any case, what was aproved there was the annexation to Castile "if the legitimate king could not recover his kingdom" (or something like that, would need to check). So Upper Navarre, even if autonomous, only existed as part of Castile since then. Incidentally, there were several attempts of liberation and rebellions lasting until 1521 (Amaiur battle), so the annexation wasn't finished till then - but this is not really of much relevance for our discussion.
As I see it, Castile was a centralized kingdom that included both Granada and Upper Navarre. Navarre had autonomy but not because of being a "kingdom" but exactly the same as the other three Basque provinces (in fact, due to the war and the occupation, for a long time it had less practical autonomy).
Now if you can refer to any document where Charles V styles himslef as "King of Navarre" and "King of Granada", I retrieve my objection - but I have never seen that so far. In any case, if you were right, there should be a note along the Navarrese title saying it was (at least nominally) disputed by the independent monarchs at Pau. --Sugaar (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems you are seeing my point and I'm glad of that.
Regarding the legitimate authority in Navarre, let's quote M. Sorauren:

The Navarrese were forced to accept Castilian sovereignity, with the compromise by the invader sovereign of respecting the entity of the Kingdom in all aspects, specially regarding the fueros [constitution, law]. The pact was formalized in March 1513 by taking the oath of the first Castilian viceroy. Example of the attitude that the Navarrese had towards the new situation is the pretense of the Pamplonese, while negotiating their surrender to the Duke of Alba, that the new monarch would only be accepted with the condition of being released of any compromise of fidelity to him, in case that the Labrit were able in the future to recover their throne. (...) the Duke of Alba threatened the authorities with the destruction [of Pamplona] if the surrender was not accepted. In any case neither the Navarrese people accepted the union like a definitive result, nor resigned to it, beginning in consequence a military occupation that would last several centuries. (...)

From Navarra, el Estado Vasco, 1998. The translation is mine.
After the conquest there was intermitent war with two attempts of reconquest in 1516 and 1521, both seconded by popular rebellion. The one fo 1521 was particularly virulent, with people taking the towns before even the Navarrese army arrived. That happened even in Pamplona, where Iñigo (later Ignatius) of Loyola and his soldiers were overwhelmed and forced to hide in a castle they had just built. The army of Asparros managed to liberate all the Kingdom this time but failed in the end, at the siege of Logroño. The legitimate monarchs never ever renounced to the integrity of their realm, nor the Castilian kings apparently dared to style themselves "King of Navarre". The only Kings of Navarre were those ruling from Pau and later from Paris. The kingdom was eventually absorbed into France but the French monarchs always used the double schuteon: the one of the Bourbons and the one of Navarre side by side, and styled themselves as late as in the 19th century as "King of France and Navarre".
So we better leave it in "King of Castile" for Charles V, sincerely.
Btw, did you know that the walls of Pamplona were built by the Castilians separated from the houses in an obvious attempt to prevent that they were taken from inside by the population. Rather than defensive walls to protect the city from enemies outside it, they were also built to protect the occupant forces from the people. That was after the Loyola epysode. --Sugaar (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually much of this stuff I didn't know myself until recently. I have some age and when I went to school, with Spanish textbooks, this epysode, like others of Basque history, was treated very marginally and settled in one or two sentences, a paragraph at most. I just hope young people now are getting better information on their own history: I've had to read a lot on my own to find out most of my own national (ethnic, if you wish) history. --Sugaar (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish related consorts

Gee wheez, it sure would've been alot easier if those monarchies hadn't given their consorts regnal numbers. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thus the sign of the times, it was a male dominated society. People tended to be unconfortable with female monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

'In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Queens

Hi Michaelsanders. I'm working hard to make appropiate succesiin boxes for the wifes of Frederick II and I don't understand why you reverted. You say Yolande was never German Queen, but in the List of Holy Roman Empresses and German Queens she is listened with Margaret of Austria, because Margaret was de facto Queen, but Yolande was the official Queen, because Frederick II shared the power with his son Henry, but never abdicated the German Throne. I appreciate if you revert this and post my succesion boxes, or, if you can do better, fix this. Thanks a lot and Merry Christmas!! Aldebaran69 (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:BlanchedEvreux.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:BlanchedEvreux.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. butko (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James I of England

Hmm, anon could've tabled his complaints in a more calmer,less combative way. Perhaps his 72hr penalty will cause him to change his approach on talk pages. Wow, he sure is angry with the relating WikiProject page. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Harry Potter newspapers and magazines

An article that you have been involved in editing, Harry Potter newspapers and magazines, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter newspapers and magazines (2nd nomination). Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of monarchs of Scotland

My reason for involving the Scottish page at List of English monarchs is because both articles are sorta linked. They both merge to become the List of British monarchs. Why Tharky is making all this fuss, when there's an article called List of monarchs in the British Isles, is beyond me. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William the Conqueror

Heya. I noticed you removed my edit last night in regards to the descendants of William the Conqueror. I've re-written what I had entered before, as I was careful with my wording not to claim that William Peverel is indeed definately the son. I just wrote that he is still for the most part accepted as being the illegitimate son of William the Conqueror.

I do believe my edit is a valid one, so I hope that this is satisfactory and won't be removed again please? --Ophaniel (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, all I had said was that he is still widely accepted as being the son, which is true. Clearly since Wikipedia is one of the few sources that outright deny this, clearly Wikipedia is unable to be quoted as proof. But if you insist on having some other website to back up the simple assertion that William Peverel is accepted as being his son, I shall go add that to the edit. Ophaniel (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I really cannot understand why you insist upon removing my edits each and every time. I have provided sources, and just because you disagree, doesn't mean that your opinion is the correct one. There is truth to the claim that Peverel was accepted for a long time as being the son of the Conqueror. I have been careful each time to not claim that Peverel is definately, 100% the son, I merely wish to give the prior accepted claim so that people can choose for themselves what they wish to believe. Your repeated edits in this fashion lead me to believe you have no real wish to see any possiblity of any other truth, and merely wish to lord over that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ophaniel (talk • contribs) 09:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Patronus Charm

An article that you have been involved in editing, Patronus Charm, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaelic and non-Gaelic names

Michael, there's been prior discussion of the Gaelic/non-Gaelic issue. You might be interested in the discussion on this topic at Talk:Constantine II of Scotland, and the discussion Angus McLellan links to from there, at Kenneth I's talk page. Personally I would prefer to see the names of the articles correspond to whatever is used in current reliable secondary sources, whether that's Gaelic or not. I won't be reverting you as I am not expert on this topic (I work mostly on Anglo-Saxon articles) but if you get reverted again I'd suggest polling some of the editors active on those pages and trying to reach a general consensus that will work for all these articles. Mike Christie (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, and have no particular stake in the outcome; I don't regard what you're doing as offensive in any way. I do think you might find opposition though, so I was just encouraging you to find a forum to get consensus, if that happens. I suspect there are arguments to be made (and policies to be cited) on both sides of the case. Mike Christie (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I see Angus has responded and you are indeed being reverted. Looks like you're a fairly experienced editor and I assume you know about the three-revert rule, but I might as well remind you just in case. I can commend Angus to you as an experienced editor with a good deal of knowledge in this field; if the two of you can reach consensus it's likely to be a good outcome. Perhaps Talk:Constantine II of Scotland would be a good place to have the debate, since Angus has begun it there. Mike Christie (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I see you're continuing to edit in line with your comments earlier. Given that so far there are at least as many editors who disagree with you as agree with you, would you mind holding off on those edits until there's consensus? If the consensus goes as you wish, you've lost nothing but a bit of time; if it goes the other way, it will save a good deal of reverting. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no question that attention would be beneficial, and I'd be delighted if you became a regular editor of them. I'm only referring to converting the names from one format to another. I think it would be a nice gesture if you were to hold off on those particular changes until there is a clear consensus. I don't know which way the consensus will go, but I assume you'll abide by it if it goes against your stated preference. So why not wait? Mike Christie (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I too have commented upon this subject, here: [7] Regards, David Lauder (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duff?

You seriously going to try to enforce "Duff" onto the article. MacDuff ... sure ... that's a surname derived from Dub and survives to this day. Duff is not a modern forename (sure, there's probably some aristocratic descendant of the earls of Fife in Canada called Duff, but seriously?) My touristy cards have "Dubh". :pDeacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, those playing cards were made by the History Channel company. :p Anyways, my point was that a source even more mediocre than the Pears Junior Encyclopaedia still doesn't use "Duff". I would totally reject both as valuable evidence for anything else. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
But Duff isn't the most common form of his name. Dub is the standard one in professional writing. I've no idea what edges it in "popular" writing, but I would guess it would probably be Dub or Dubh, not Duff. I could google it, but can't be assed coming up with an secure formula which almost certainly wouldn't yield any results. As for me, isn't it you that's attempting to change things? Why is the burden of proof suddenly on everyone else? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey ... I'm not superman; can't do everything in an instant. Anyways, I don't actually have much of a problem with Constantine. It's context I suppose. The bulk of names on an article about Constantine I, II, III or -I are going to be Celtiform, with almost no other types of names. So you're gonna use patronymics to dab, the standard way of doing it in the topic area (you can't have "Constantine mac Aeda"). That won't be the case with David and his era. It's a bit arbitrary, but it is the reality in the writings. If the article on ... say ... Constantine II used patronymics in "son of" rather than "mac", I'd have little problem with "Constantine". This is just personal though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You are right to point out that there is no "standard" native form for Constantine in modern writings, and that's because there was no standard one in the sources. It was not a indigenous Gaelic name after all. This is indeed a good argument for using Constantine, but is particular to the case of the name Constantine. Numerals are not great dabs. They're seen as anachronistic by anyone knowledgeable about the period, and don't help when the pre-regnal stuff is discussed, nor when non royal Constantines appear in the text. And again, nativising/anglicizing is a balance. There's no perfect way. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Mael Coluim is pretty standard. The difference between Choluim and Coluim arises because in the written language of the time there was a dot placed over the C which indicated the aspiration, and that doesn't come across in modern orthography unless you use the H. It's the same deal with Dub/Dubh, Aed/Aedh, Cinaed/Cinaedh, etc. They would save themselves a lot of trouble if they just used the h, but they don't and there's nothing us wiki editors can do about that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Your "source" isn't accurate. Colum is the name of a saint; in the genitive case it is Coluim. Of course, standardizing medieval languages like this may be misleading, but I guarantee you your source wasn't making consideration of this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, they obviously have research issues on this matter. BTW, it'd help you to gain a greater awareness of the reliability of tertiary sources for such matters if you wish do well beyond sophomore level academia. That's good faith advice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Take your pick. Get any old Irish grammar for the rule, and look through any reliable source for evidence of it in practice, now or in the middle ages. For instance, since you have ODNB, compare this and this (or this), with this and this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coronations

According to Marianus Scotus 65, and Fordun book v c.8, Lulack was "sat on the Royal Seat as King", at Scone, in 1057. Malcolm Canmore was likewise "sat on the Throne and Crowned at Scone" on the 25th April 1058 (but the Melrose Chronicle gives the year as 1056/7, i.e: 1057). Regards, David Lauder (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:V, you'd best not to rely on any editor's interpretation of primary sources and instead read the discussions in Duncan, Kingship of the Scots, pp. 49–51, and Woolf, Pictland to Alba, pp. 263–271. There are at least two possible reconstructions of events in 1057–1058 which seek to reconcile the testimonies of Marianus, the Melrose Chronicle, and the Irish annals. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are today's transcribers any more brilliant than yesterdays? What reasons can there be for discarding one old scholar, editor, or transcriber and not the latest ones? I was told only the week before Christmas by one of Scotland's leading transcribers of ancient manuscripts that the fundamentals and interpretations are much the same today as they were in 1800. I appreciate that there is this set of late 20th century folk in and out of academia who have ten thousand new points of view but it doesn't make them right. I'll certainly have a look at the books you recommend, though. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Margaret of Germany

Moot point, but I'd go for a merge, personally. Deb (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm coming round to the idea of a move, since the Margaret of Germany article was only created today. Better to just save the content of the present Margaret of Germany, move the other one and then incorporate the new text. Deb (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erm ...

I can kinda see what you might mean by this comment. The unknowing doesn't know if there is only one Donnchad mac Crinain unless told; is this a major source of your opposition to these forms? I see the man is very suddenly introduced. There are of course other way to fix that. In this instance by, say, adding "(Duncan I) king of the Scots". How does it "read like a non sequiter" though?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Co-operation

When someone tries to compromise with you, it doesn't mean that the compromise being offered is final. It's your opportunity to respond positively. Complete reverts just create tension, and lead nowhere. I refer specifically to the List of Scottish monarchs page. I woked hard to try and get closer to a middle ground, and you just blank reverted me. So how am I supposed to believe working with you is possible after such a slap in the face? You could have replaced one or two of the columns most unacceptable for you with columns you most desired, but you didn't; you blank reverted. So you might as well state explicitly if you have no wish to compromise. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish/Scottish names

Hi. I don't think I am neutral, really, as I agree with you on this one, and have contributed to the debate previously. But let me know if anything problematic happens, eg. more page moves. Deb (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erm ...

If you can hold off fighting for a few hours, I have a solution in mind, which I will propose on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what he's got to say first. Deb (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Deacon.27s_suggestion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:

Well imagine an adult was beside me helping me write it then. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Leave David to me btw. I'll do it tomorrow prolly. It's necessary for me to go over that article anyways, for other reasons. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move of Scottish kings

There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. Probably won't be successful, but that's wiki for you. Note, this does not have any necessary effect on the compromise. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I should emphasize my proposed move is about titles; UE is secondary but considered when possible. E.g. Kenneth MacAlpin. Unfortunately for most of the others, I can't see any way of using convincing English names in the title, dabbing and being accurate at the same time. The compromise stands as it did, and I know hostility to these forms is likely to cause the proposal to fail. It's a crying shame. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Margaret of wherever

Not a bit of it, Michael, you didn't do anything wrong at all. I just misunderstood why you were asking me, and then I was tired after driving all day and I didn't pay attention to what I was doing. Happy new year, by the way. Deb (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish monarchs

I appreciate you made an effort to compromise on the Scottish monarchs. I'll just say for now that I don't think the birth date column on the second part is useful. This will be mostly empty and attract spurious information. Regarding the modern Gaelic names. It's now the case that they are everywhere except the 2nd section. I forgot to mention this I think, but there used to be an article on the Gaelic names of Scottish kings (modern ones, not medieval). There was a deletion vote, and the result was merge. I would like to propose as a final compromise (over the tables) that the birth column be removed, and the medieval names reinserted ... with the modern under the English name, as per remainder of the article. I dunno where the nicknames could go. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mike; when ya get the time, would ya peek at Charles II of England discussion, concerning Charlie's Scottish reign. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The above

I see there's been some wholesale reverting of your changes going on - strictly against wikiquette, of course, but I recommend you don't let yourself get involved in a revert war at the moment. Just take a deep breath and occupy yourself with something else until they calm down. Deb (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly have no plans to "calm down". It's not me who's spent the last week edit-warring. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Himiltrude

Would you like to actually provide a source, instead of simply making crude edits to claim that Charlemagne was actually married to Himiltrude? Michael Sanders 16:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, focusing solely on the Himiltrud & other wifes issue: you are assuming a lot and end up pushing a certain POV.

  • Looking at Einhard doesn't make your case, as Einhard (ch. 20) says "Erat ei filius nomine Pippinus ex concubina editus ..." - He calls her simply a concubine, and says nothing about Friedelehe.
  • However, in other sources, she is simply referred to as Charles' wife, e.g. a letter by the Pope.
  • If you can read German, this should be interesting: http://www.mittelalter-genealogie.de/karolinger_familie_karls/himiltrud_frankenkoenigin_769.html
  • Some historians have tried to solve this contradiction by supposing the concept of "Friedelehe", a form of marriage above concubinage and below sacramental marriage. They might be right, they might be wrong but it is still only a theory and to my knowledge it is nowadays not generally accepted.
  • I don't have P. Riche at hand but I think I remember him placing Himiltrud among "Desiderata" and Hildegard without distinction.
  • And anywhere I look I can see the numbering 1. Himiltrud, 2. "Desiderata", 3. Hildegard, even among those that subscribe to the Friedelehe concept - and unsurprisingly so: a Friedelwife is a special kind of wife but a wife nonetheless.
  • Certainly, the Charlemagne biography by Dieter Hägermann, which I have at hand, does so, and argues that Einhard called Himilitrud concubine to protect his lord against accusations of polygamy.

In your footnote, you are quoting Riche who however merely quotes Einhard here. Also you turn Chamberlin's quite nuanced statement and his "perhabs could be compared" into that terrible "common law marriage" statement - common law is English law and does not apply here. And your "partner" elsewhere is really just ugly.

That is certainly enough to cast doubt on your "statements of fact". I never tried to remove the Friedelehe concept out of WP - but to simply state it as fact, to write Himiltrud the wife (whether Friedelwife or full wife) out of history, to ignore the status of the Friedelehe as a construct, to avoid unfitting sources, is unacceptable. Str1977 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You should read more carefully: not I say that Einhard tried to defend Charles against polygamy but Hägermann did. (And as for Desiderata, a) making her a concubine was hardly possible, b) their marriage was annulled, c) for Einhard Hildegard was the first legitimate wife of Charlemagne.) I did not say that Einhard proves my point but that he doesn't prove yours. You go around shouting that I should read Einhard as if Einhard elaborated on Friedelehe when in fact he doesn't mention Friedelehe but calls H. a concubine - which is in contrast to the Pope's letter who speaks about wives. Pierre Riche in your quote uses exactly Einhard's words. And how can "common law" be opposed with "law" - common law is a different set of law but not "not law" as you claim. Str1977 (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

>>Be that as it may: Einhard calls her a concubine. A concubine is not a wife. So she cannot be described as "Charlemagne's first wife".<<
Now that's absurd. I suppose the Charlemagne article contradicts Einhard in numerous ways, including the year of his birth? Einhard does not dictate our article - otherwise we could just link to him. Of course, historians based themselves on him but also on other sources. Also, you had no problem before when the article contradicted Einhard by supposing a Friedelehe - A concubine is not a wife, not even a Friedelwife. She should be described in that way as historians describe her ... and I always have seen her numbered as the first wife, including by those that suppose a friedelehe ... because a friedelwife is a wife too. Of course, this all contradicts Einhard's clear statement.
>>His first wife was the Lombard Princess we call Desiderata.<<
Says who? Please, provide a real reference for that claim (not for Friedelstuff or anything but for the "Desiderata first wife" claim.
In any case, we should remove areas of contention so if some article, especially the children, refer to one of the wives, we should avoid numbering at least there and restrict this to the Charlemagne and to the wives' articles.
On common law, thanks for ignoring what I wrote about your misusing Chamberlin. Str1977 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it's necessary. The only source you've given claiming that Himiltrude was Charlemagne's canonically lawful wife is Pope Stephen III's letter - and Einhard is a far more reputable primary source than that letter. Desiderata was Charlemagne's first wife: Einhard, Riche and Thorpe all refer to Charlemagne as being married four times (Chamberlin of course takes the more nuanced view of the friedelehe rather than simply concubinage), Riche and Thorpe numbering Hildegard, Fastrada and Liutgard as 2,3,4, whilst Thorpe also numbers 'the daughter of Desiderius' as number 1 in a genealogical table; Einhard specifically states that Charlemagne "married a daughter of Desiderius". Michael Sanders 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"The only source" - no, I gave you the Pope's letter and Hägemann. And you provided Chamberlin, who would support numbering Himiltrude as wife number 1, as he sees her as more than a concubine.
Okay, I take your Thorpe as the first piece of evidence for your position (the others are hard to tell as long as they do not explicitely identify number 1 - they could also discount Desiderata because the marriage was annulled and produced no child). It seems we do have a lack of unity among historians here as those that I remember placed Himiltrude first, so what to do?
I must disagree with your placing Einhard (writing in the 9th century with a clear interest) over a Pope living contemporary to the Himiltrud relationship.
That Einhard specifically states the marriage is irrelevant as I never disputed that. He could have hardly avoided mentioning that fact.
Finally, could you realise that I am not trying to insist on Himiltrude's status as wife. What I am up in arms about is to properly and NEUTRALLY relate this whole matter. Str1977 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
So, my suggestion is this:
  • Restrict the conflict to the articles where it is unavoidable. We must number the women on Charlemagne's page, while at the women's pages it is useful. However, I don't see that we need to do it regarding the children. I especially don't think that anyone reading about Charles the Younger is interested in Himiltrude's marital status.
  • Regarding the numbering of course we have to find a solution.
  • Regarding Himiltrude herself, I have overhauled her article based on the sources I right now had in hand. IMHO this version should be acceptable to you too. And there is always room for adding more.
Str1977 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
How about my other suggestions?
  • Avoid the issue in the children's articles (regardless how small they are).
  • In particular, the note currently in the Hildgegard article seems largely off topic. Can we not restrict this to information relevant to Hildegard. My suggestion for the wife-articles would be, very roughly, e.g. in Hildegard's case: "... second wife - footnote "Thorpe (...), X, Y, Z count her as Charlemagne's second wife, classifying Himiltrude as a concubine or Friedelfrau. Other historians, e.g. Hägemann, X, Y, Z, count Himiltrude as a wife and use a different counting." Str1977 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to say "...was the second wife of Charlemagne [ref: as described by Einhard. Some modern historians list Himiltrude, described by Einhard as a concubine, as Charlemagne's first wife, and reorder his subsequent wives; accordingly Hildegard is sometimes numbered as his third wife. See (-insert historian arguing that she was a wife here-), Riche, Chamberlin.] Einhard goes into far more detail than Stephen III and is far more reliable, and is our main source for the life of Charlemagne and his family - and Einhard lists Charlemagne as married to four women, and inserts Himiltrude as a concubine. I think that should be followed in terms of basic statements, so long as we make the situation clear in the notes (the article body isn't really appropriate since Himiltrude doesn't really touch upon Hildegard, Fastrada and Luitgard)

Not quite. We cannot base ourselves on Einhard as that would be original research (since Einhard does not give a numbered list), the adding up must be done by historians outside of WP.
Again, I cannot simply accept your take on Einhard's reliability on details. You know the huge debate about the year Charlemagne was born. Consider this. But that is hardly relevant - we must anyway base ourselves on "secondary sources". So, my suggestion:
"...was the second wife of Charlemagne [ref: as described by historians such as Pierre Riche etc. Other historians list Himiltrude, described by Einhard as a concubine, as Charlemagne's first wife, and reorder his subsequent wives; accordingly Hildegard is sometimes numbered as his third wife. See Hägemann etc.]
Chamberlin thus far has not been cited for any numbering, so we should introduce him here. Str1977 (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Your recent edits (practically reverts) in articles related to medieval and early modern Hungary border vandalism. In any case, those edits appear blindly made and ignorant of facts. You are warned against making hasty edits and reverts. If such continues, it will be regarded as wilful vandalism. Marrtel (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picts

Something other than argument by assertion would be good. Have a look on Google books. See how many "Bridei III"s you can find as opposed to the "son of"/"mac" versions. I think there are 3 hits for "Bridei III" and 5 for "Brude III", total 8. On the other hand, there are 5, including the DNB for "Bridei son of Beli", 5 for "Bridei son of Bili", 3 for "Bridei son of Bile", 24 for "Bruide son of Bile", 4 for "Bruide son of Bili", 1 for "Brude son of Beli", 17 for "Brude son of Bili", 66 for "Brude son of Bile", and then there are the "macs", including 38 for "Brude mac Bile", 21 for "Bruide mac Bili", 6 for "Bruide mac Bili", 9 for "Brude mac Bili" ... The second lot include duplicates of course but not all that many. Not so easy to do for "Bridei I", but you could try that too. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The ordinals are used in wikipedia, they are even used in the template, and they are far more usable than "x son of y". At the very least you could show some consideration to other readers by disambiguating the numerous Drests and Brideis with the patronymics. Michael Sanders 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Michael, the ordinals were not used in the articles until you changed them, so it's disingenuous to say they "are used in Wikipedia" when that means "they are used in Wikipedia since Michael Sanders recently changed things so that they are used". When I look at the miserable, largely unexpandable articles on Pictish kings, I've been inclined to think that, far from wasting time by changing things, the right thing to do would be to redirect most of them to List of Kings of the Picts. The sum and substance of the state of knowledge about "Galam Cennalath" is, and may well always be, that (a) the king lists mention him, and (b) his death was reported circa 580. That, little as it is, is more than can be said for the rulers listed in List of Kings of the Picts#Early kings apart from the first two, and the information on many later ones is little better. However, until the appearance of Fraser's Caledonia to Pictland I'm disinclined to expend any energy on these articles as the work would likely need redone. I disagree, and almost all writings on the subject do too, with the way you are going about things. Still, there's always the off chance that you'll read about the subject. Please place any further comments here rather than my talk page, thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The whole problem is that they weren't used in the articles - despite being used in the article titles. If an easy-to-use and unambiguous system of referencing exists, it is unreasonable to deprive the readers of its full benefits. It is also unreasonable to imagine that the Picts require any special measures in referencing, that an existing non-wikipedia-based ordinal system should not be used, when the same is true for so many other situations - just look at the Popes (in particular Pope-elect Stephen). There are plenty of other figures in history who are known by ordinals applied much later. The Picts are in exactly the same situation as "Papa Ioannis Iunior" et al. Michael Sanders 20:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This is still argument by assertion Michael. "Oh yes he did" might be good pantomime, but it won't get us anywhere here. When you get back to uni and have some time in the library, please look into the subject.
Regarding this, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. This move log should be enough to convince you that this is an(other) editor with a keen interest in the naming of royalty articles. Xe doesn't like "Gaelic" names either, so you have that in common. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Sanders, these numbers are not used by anyone pretty much except wikipedia; it something like coincidence that say this book uses the same one, a coincidence spawned simply because both independently decided to start their lists from Drest of the 100 Battles. If an easy-to-use and unambiguous system of referencing exists, it is unreasonable to deprive the readers of its full benefits. <- It doesn't exist. Again you're ignorance shines through. These numbers were effectively made up for wikipedia dab purposes; there's not even the remotest de facto consensus that for instance that the last Drest should be Drest X, nor even that Bridei II refers to Bridei son of Uuid. You're damaging wikipedia by trying to force these into articles. When is all this gonna stop? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Wikipedia policy recommends that moving of articles happens through WP:RM, at least if there is any possibility that the move may be controversial. You have at least recently moved several biographies to unwieldy names from places they have long been. It is my opinion that you are wilfully defying Wikipedia practice of seeking consensus for moves, and that you are just practically blindly moving, according to your own wishes. This is not a good sign. In future, use the prescribed Move Request procedure in all moves, and do not move anything without consensus. Please take this as fair warning. Marrtel (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burgundian circle

Please Michael, if you don't believe me go to your books and find out about the Imperial circles and about the Habsburg Netherlands/17 Provinces.

  • The latter were a personal union created by the Burgundians and inherited in 1477 by Habsburgs - in 1549 Charles tightened the union by the Pragmatic Sanction, making these lands are permanent union. The rising of the Northern Netherlands divided this again ... or rather restricted the Habsburg Netherlands to to the South. However, this was not immediately accepted by the Habsburg Kings of Spain who still claimed the Northern provinces as well. (Hence a split: Philip II was succeed by ... and the Dutch Republich is nonsense). The same goes for territories lost later on - the Kings (or their represantives) remained rulers of the Spanish (and later Austrian) Netherlands, even if those shrank in size.
  • The Burgundian circle was created in 1512 and largely consisted of the 17 Provinces. I say largely, as (in 1512) it also included the Lordship of Breda (held by he house of Nassau), the County of Horne, the Counties Egmond and IJsselstein and the Lordship Bergh. All these were not Habsburg territories, not part of the Seventeen Provinces. Surely, the Habsburgs dominated circle institutions since they held most territories except these rather small others. The same holds true for Austrian Circle as well but no one would confuse the Austrian Erblande with the Circle. (In all other circles a certain balance between at least two major forces prevailed.) Still, legally officeholders of the Circle (kreisauschreibender Fürst, Kreishauptmann) had no sovereinity over the circle members just as the general secretary of NATO is not the supreme governor of all NATO states. (Or take the European Union, if you will.)
  • Sovereign: In each of the 17 provinces and in the Netherlands in its entirety one can speak of sovereignity (notwithstanding the supreme sovereignity of the Emperor, at least until 1648). However, there is no sovereign of an Imperial circle, as it is merely a regional administrative grouping of (sovereign) territories.
  • Hence there is also no "consort" of any Circle as consort refers to actually held territories, not to administrative units. However, to create lists of consorts of the Spanish Netherlands is also nonsense, as eo ipso these were identical with the Spanish consorts. That's why they are called "Spanish Netherlands" after all.

Please, I am begging of you, go and consider these things, look them up in your books before you revert me. This is no trivial matter nor a matter of perspective (as the counting of Charlemagne's wives is) but a serious confusion of two fundamentally flawed entities. Str1977 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Germany and the Holy Roman Emperors

I tell you what: I will stop using it, if you make sure that "King of Germany (formally King of the Romans)" is consistently used in the succession boxes and you stop adding that "titles in pretence" nonsense (especially the anti-king succession box which somehow creates a bogus succession between Richard/Alfons to Albert I). You should also accept that Francis II did not abdicate (he declared the bonds of the Empire dissolved). Str1977 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The titles in pretence is appropriate, since it reflects historical acceptance. Richard of Cornwall, William of Holland, and Alfonso of Castile are never accepted as legitimate "Kings of Germany" in the sense of Rudolf I or Conrad III, merely as titular Kings of the Romans in a period of Interregnum.

As for Francis II, according to Bryce (remember, the author Srnec recommended who won the "King of the Romans" argument for you), Francis "resigned the imperial dignity. The instrument announces that, finding it impossible, in the altered state of things, to fulfill the obligationss taken at his election he considers as dissolved the bonds which attached him to the Germanic body, releases from their allegiance the states of which it consisted, and retires...[to Austria]." Bryce appears to interpret the "release of allegiance" as being allegiance to Francis personally: he points out that Britain's refusal to accept the dissolution of the Empire may have been justified in law, and that "the empire was never extinguished at all, but lived on as some disembodied spirit. For it is clear that, technically speaking, the abdication of a sovereign only destroys his own rights, and does not dissolve the state over which he presides." Michael Sanders 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Albert was the next anti-king. Michael Sanders 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not. Sure William started out as anti-king but after Conrad's death there was no competition. He was not the first anti-king to become sole king. The Interregnum here is not a period without a king but without an effective king.
Richard and Alfonso blocked themselves. But Richard at least visited Germany twice, was elected senator of Rome. Only when he died was Rudolf elected - if Richard was only in pretence (which means something completely different), then Rudolf was his successor as pretender. And no, Albert was in no way a successor to Richard (or Alfonso)
Bryce, in your quote, does not say that Francis abdicated - he specifically does not say that. He releases the other members from the bonds and retires to Austria. If he had abdicated, the danger of another ruler being elected in his stead was present, therefore he didn't do it. Even if you interpret his move as abdication, the Empire was certainly dissolved. Whether the British government recognizes this is of no consequence.
So, you claim the Empire was never dissolved. So, where did it go? It wasn't in existence anymore after 1806 (unless you want to accept the Habsburg Empire as a successor). Str1977 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The question is what historians actually say. And whilst there is disagreement on whether to count Conrad IV as a legitimate King, William, Richard and Alfonso are never counted. It has nothing to do with who opposed them (there've been anti-popes with no opposition), but to do with whether they are accepted by historians. Thus, William is not, even when he is the only claimant to the vacant throne of Germany, partly because he was unable to establish his authority, partly because historians just don't. Same with Richard and Alfonso, for all that Richard set foot in Germany a couple of times.
As for Francis II, Bryce quite specifically says that he "resigned the imperial dignity" - his paraphrasing of the device then goes on to say that the Emperor considered the bonds of allegiance the princes owed him were dissolved.
The Empire itself was not Germany. The "Kingdom of Germany" would legally have ended when its nobility declared themselves Kings, and when the confederation of the Rhine was created, invalidating any claims of vassalage the princes owed to the absent "King of Germany". As for the Empire - to paraphrase Bryce again, the Imperial title could be granted by the Pope to anyone, even a knight with only a foot of ground. So in theory, perhaps Pope Benedict could still grant the title. Who knows? It's all theoretical, because the reality was that with Francis' abdication, the duty to summon the College of Electors fell upon the Elector of Saxony, the Rector - and he was a supporter of Napoleon, and declared himself King. Michael Sanders 23:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
But historians do not call these illegitimate kings (and no, there have never been anti-popes with no opposition). These Kings were certainly not pretenders (well, Alfonso was in a way but that was part of his personality that he never came around to doing anything) - a pretender is e.g. Bonnie Prince Charlie opposing the House of Hannover, or even the English Kings claiming the French throne post 1450, but William was King unopposed after 1254 - and the continuity of election from Richard to Rudolf is clear as well.
Wasn't Pope Leo VIII an instance similar to William of Holland? He started out as an antipope, but after the deposition of Benedict V he is sort of recognized as a real pope, seemingly. john k (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Francis' statement is difficult I agree. But we should not phantasize that the Holy Roman Empire continued. Even if the Pope would crown someone Emperor (and I doubt a mere knight would suffice, or that one could revive the Roman Empire after it has vanished completely - in 800 the Empire existed) it would be something else.
And no, the Elector of Saxony had no right to summon the Electors (anyway he was only one of the vicars) as he had already left the Empire. Remember, the declaration - no matter what it was - was preceded by Napoleon's allies leaving the Empire. Str1977 (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Effectively, no the Holy Roman Empire didn't continue. But that doesn't make statements that Francis II 'dissolved' it valid. It ended because he abdicated and no-one upheld it any longer. But you are confusing the intangible title of 'Holy Roman Emperor' with the solid 'Kingdom of Germany'. The Kingdom of Germany was already falling apart on Francis' abdication because the princes were either openly or secretly defaulting upon their vassalage to their sovereign; the Elector of Saxony, being Imperial Vicar during interregna, was meant to summon the electoral college, but didn't which placed the Kingdom and Empire in a theoretical interregna, but in reality made it clear that the Kingdom was ended.

The Imperial title, however, was in the eyes of the Papacy (validated by history) a gift of the Pope, granted to whomever the Pope chose to uphold his own rights in the Papal territories (even "a simple knight without a foot of land in the world"). It had already gone into abeyance with the death of Berengarius, and emerged as a new creature with Otto I; had Napoleon wished, he could have been crowned "Holy Roman Emperor" in Rome by the Pope, and been as legitimate as Otto I. In which case, the "Holy Roman Empire" would have been the title applied to the realm of Napoleon, rather than the Kingdom of Germany. Michael Sanders 23:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-popes have commonly been opposed by other factions, yes. But not always by rival Popes. See Antipope Constantine II, who reigned without any opposing Popes, Stephen III only being elected on Constantine's deposition. The same principle applies - a man may be titled Pope or King of the Romans, and there may be continuity of elections, but we only accept the person as legitimately such if history commonly considers him such. Wikipedia's acceptance of who was a legitimate King and who was a pretender should be based upon history's acceptance, rather than assuming that one is a legitimate monarch if one is unopposed. Michael Sanders 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. That was no interregnum - and that would be concerned with the Kingdom anyway, as would be the election. And you are forgetting that Francis declared the bonds of Empire dissolved - to me that is recognizing the dissolution of the Empire. But we need not waste energies on such theoretical questions.
No, the Imperial title was not something the Pope could put on anyone he chose, even if some theorists of papal powers would has said this. No, Napoleon could not have been crowned HRE in Rome (and certainly not as legitimate as Otto) as he had already crowned himself in 1804, when Francis was still Roman Emperor. But nowawdays, the train has certainly left as there is no shred of Roman Empire left. And no Empire, no Emperor. Str1977 (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if your anti-pope claim (thus far it is only one - and I doubt that calling him antipope is in anyway legitimate, if he didn't oppose anybody) were true, anti-kings are not pretenders. Contrary to your ideas, historians (rather than history) does not count these three out of the line of German history, even if they were anti-kings of sorts - but we also have Philip vs. Otto vs. Frederick and Frederick vs. Louis vs. Charles. Are these illegitimate too?
Pretenders would have been descendants of Alfonso or Richard still claiming the kingship after decades. Frederick III of Sicily was a pretender, Charles of Anjou was a pretender to the Latin Empire and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Charles VIII and Frederick of Aragaon were pretenders to the Byzantine Empire etc. But our three folks actually ruled (well, Alfonso in his special way). Str1977 (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have looked up more about Constantine and it seems that he was elected when Paul I was still alive. Hence anti-pope. Str1977 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Charles of Anjou was actually recognized in Acre from 1277 to 1285, I think, as King of Jerusalem, so his claim wasn't entirely pretense. john k (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You misquote me, he acknowledged that the Empire had dissolved. Not that he would be dissolved from it.

"The Pope could theoretically chose anyone to crown emperor"

That's your claim and nothing more. Since it never happened you cannot prove it. Liechtenstein is completely irrelevant and guess what - Luxemburg exists too. But these are completely detached from any Roman Empire if not in 1806 then at least now. A strange sentence: "an Emperor could legitimately wear more than one crown at a time" - well, who couldn't?
But all in all I am not interested in discussing your theories.
"Who never consider William, Richard or Alfonso as ruling, but as merely 'antikings'" - they regard them as antikings but that doesn't erase them from the line of succession. You are simply overinterpreting what historians are saying. Str1977 (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, he seems to have been deposed pretty immediately. In any case, William was much more widely recognized and is numbered among the Kings by historians, contrary to your claims. Str1977 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I misread. Still, my case stands. William was recognized for two years. Str1977 (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to butt in here to say that I personally dislike "Roman-German King" and think we can just drop the pretentious "Roman", which was merely part of the kings' own propaganda. I vote to accept papal propaganda. But that said: Michael, your preferred style of succession box is large and unwieldly and I fear it will be hard to understand for many. "Titles in pretence"? This is the Middle Ages for crying out loud! And finally, I wish you would just drop the issue of who was and was not a legitimate German monarch, since modern historians would never make that judgement. Some thought Alfonso X was legitimate king and others though Richard of Cornwall and so and so on. Their supporters would have strongly disagreed with you, since both Richard and Alfonso had been elected, as had William of Holland. Just call them kings and tell the reader that they held their titles with opposition and their authority was limited greatly. The "Great Interregnum" was really just the "Great Confusion", but that was nothing new in Italy. And the Empire remained without and Emperor until 1314. Srnec (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Surely Henry VII was crowned emperor in 1312? john k (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

With regard to these issues, Richard and Alfonso's claims were not "titles in pretense" in the way, say, Bonnie Prince Charlie's were, and I think we should be careful not to impute later standards to the Middle Ages, as Srnec suggests. Our normal succession box should include Richard and Alfonso, if possible. The very idea of a "title in pretense" in the Middle Ages is problematic, and we should avoid it. john k (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

Ah and please, have a long look at the regal numbers in the King of Italy list and tell me what you see. Are these really the number of Emperors or are these those of Kings?
  1. Henry II (1004–1024) - Henry I was never Emperor
  2. Conrad II (1026–1039) - Conrad I was never Emperor
  3. Henry III (1039–1056) - Henry I was never Emperor
  4. Henry IV (1080–1093) - Henry I was never Emperor
  5. Henry V (1099–1125) - Henry I was never Emperor
  6. Henry VI (1191–1197) - Henry I was never Emperor
  7. Henry VII (1308–1313) - Henry I was never Emperor
  8. Louis IV (1327–1347) - fits both ways
  9. Charles IV (1355–1378) - fits both ways
  10. Albert II (1437–1439) - Albert I was never Emoeror
  11. Charles V (1530–1556) - fits both ways
  12. Rudolf II (1576–1608) - Rudolf I was never Emperor
  13. Charles VI (1711–1740) - fits both ways
  14. Charles VII (1742–1745) - fits both ways

However, I must correct myself too. There is one case where an Imperial number is used:

  1. Lothair III (1128–1137)

But that's the only one.

Think about it. Str1977 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Louis IV was King Louis V of Germany - you forgot Louis the Child. Lothar III is just made up - he was actually Lothar I of Germany and Emperor Lothar II. Michael Sanders 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, you are right regarding Louis the Bavarian - he was Louis the Forth of that name as Emperor.
And I was wrong regarding Lothar - he was the 3rd King of that name (not of the Eastern realm but of Lothringia which by in the Supplingenburger's day was part of the Eastern realm).
But still, Henry, Conrad and Rudolf are clearly regnal numbers.

You see, we were both wrong ... but the sentence in the article is wrong as well. We should write "numbers are commonly used by historians" as there is apparently no coherent system that fits all of them.

[edit] Charles V

No, he was proclaimed as such at this royal coronation in Aachen, which happened only on October 23, 1520, as he had to travel from Spain to Germany first. Str1977 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Berengar

Could you please for once reflect and ask before reverting (or at least improve to something acceptable to you)?

I did not claim that the Guideschi or Berengar were more or less legitimate, but the previous mock table really made no sense of this at all (and singled out Berengar more than I did, so your complaint should go to the earlier version).

My change wants to make clear that there was Berengar as King (he is first just because he got there first) and many who opposed him and each other, first Guy and Lambert, then a line of Frankish outsiders opposing both Berengar and Lambert (as long as he lasted), then Berengar was alone again and he was succeeded as the list shows.

There is no claim of (il)legitimacy in there at all. Str1977 (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adelolf

Do you know anything about fr:Adalolphe de Boulogne? I have plenty of info on his visit to England with the Holy Lance, etc., to get a wife for Hugh the Great, and him burying Edwin, but that's more or less it apart from trivial details. If you do, I have a half written-article in a sandbox I can dig out. But what should be be called? Riché calls him Adalolf, abbé de St Bertin. Le Jan's Famille et Pouvoir says Adaloul, fils de ...''. I'd have said Adelolf, Count of Boulogne, although maybe Æthelwulf, Count of Boulogne would be more English. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-naming proposals

I'm guessing you're on holiday or taking a break. If you happen to be around, you may be interested in the re-naming debates taking place at Talk:William I of England and other articles. Deb (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greece

Dear Michael, could you have a view on this and comment? Thanks, Str1977 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:English Monarchs - table footer

A tag has been placed on Template:English Monarchs - table footer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:House of Lancaster2

A tag has been placed on Template:House of Lancaster2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BlanchedEvreux.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:BlanchedEvreux.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Alex Spade (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Otto I, Duke of Merania

I've noticed that you have gone through the County of Burgundy articles changing "Moravia" to "Merania", and I just wanted to make sure that your failing to do so in one instance in this particular article was an oversight(?) I have changed it in the mean-time, but thought it better to check. LaFoiblesse 01:36, 2008-02-20 (GMT)

[edit] Care to Participate in a discussion

Hi. I was wondering if you would care to take part in a discussion taking place on one of the pages you created, {{Holy Roman Emperors}}. It has recently been discovered that there are three templates one of which is the Holy Roman Emperor Template that all overlap a discussion is taking place about which one to delete. If you would like to share your views please do so on the {{Holy Roman Emperors}} talk page. Regards, hope to see you in the discussion soon. Electrobe (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MIA??

Hello Michaelsanders; It's been over 3-months now; Where are you? GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Anne de Bretagne-Jean Bourdichon-reverse.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Anne de Bretagne-Jean Bourdichon-reverse.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Empress matilda.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Empress matilda.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)