User talk:7 Letters

Yes, I am new!
I wonder if I'll still get the whole welcome thing if I've edited my page first :-) 7 Letters (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style


 * Haha, thank you! :-) Seven Letters 02:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem chez Louis Alphonse
Seven Letters,

As I was adding Louis Alphonse's given names in French after your comment, my computer crashed and, somehow, the whole page got blanked out. Someone is trying to put it back as it was, in the meantime, all discussions are archived!

My sincere apologies for the inconvenience this may be causing to you & anyone else trying to get in the conversation. (Hopefully everyone is asleep!)

Regards, --Frania W. (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Zara Phillips
You seem to be under a misapprehension regarding this subject. It is perfectly within the rules of wikipedia to add SOURCED and REFERENCED comment, that is verifiable, legitimate comment and available in any public forum. Four sources, all published globally have now been provided to back up the comment. If it personally bothers you, alas, that is not grounds for continual removal. Please desist from this practice. 66.127.61.83 (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not encyclopedic and certainly does not belong in the first paragraph (or at all). You should read WP:BLP. You obviously have some sort of twisted bone to pick pushing for some fringe gutter gossip. Seven Letters 20:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do not and to suggest I have a "twisted bone to pick for some fringe gutter gossip" is slanderous and possibly libellous. I shall be consulting lawyers. I hope you are prepared. Providing four (of many) sourced, published, publicly available references regarding a person is not a violation. I see that you are new to wiki. And thankfully, by the time the writs are issued, a short lived contributor. Good luck. 66.127.61.83 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ...WP:LEGAL. Seven Letters 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is kind of funny, actually. Who's new to wiki, Mr IP Address? Half  Shadow  21:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or Ms. IP Address, who knows! I am serious about my editing but I don't take things like these so seriously, although there are serious ways of dealing with them. I have to admit though, "And thankfully, by the time the writs are issued, a short lived contributor" was rather amusing. Seven Letters 21:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well one of you didn't last long. Does it count as correct if they get the wrong person? Half  Shadow  21:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it happened before the writs were issued and to the other person. Someone can pull a bit of truth out of it. Seven Letters 21:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Alas, I don't know anything about the subject of this argument. But I did some cursory research when I saw this debate and it does seem that there is considerable speculation about the parentage of this individual. I recognize that Wikipedia is encyclopaedic and thus should not be spreading inuendo, rumour or unsubstantiated gossip and I do my best to make sure there are sources for anything I post and I help out other editors by adding sources when they have neglected to do so, rather than just deleting their efforts. In this case though, it does seem that the editor in question had found several sources and had used them to back up their edits. It's a tricky one I admit. It is encyclopaedic to state the parents of an individual. But having done that, if there is considerable public doubt over those claims - which there appears to be in this case - then it seems perfectly encyclopaedic and within wiki's rules to include sourced references that allude to the controversy. Reading what this editor wrote, they merely commented that doubt had been raised and included the sources of those doubts. Wiki will be a poorer site for ignoring such detail. As I say, I know nothing about the subject of the page, but I do know that this editor made many, many accurate edits to wiki on other subjects. I note that they've now been banned from the site, which I think is a shame. But I also note that Wiki usually takes a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Perhaps in the future, rather than just deleting and igniting an edit war, you could take the time to find sources etc., to put an argument forward. In this case, you simply resorted to unpleasant abuse. I'm sorry you did that and it seems the editor is right in this case to have taken offense. Alas, they have been banned, but you have not. That's the way of the wiki world. But had you dished out the same abuse to me, I may well have reacted the same way. It took me about 2 minutes to verify that what they had edited was substantiated. Surely you could have done the same? Wiki will be a better place for editors taking the time to help rather than abuse. I also would offer a piece of advice that seems pertinent: When you're in a hole, stop digging. TVArchivistUK (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't like you
Seen you on WP:ANI.

Don't like you one little bit, tbh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.253.128 (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have to like me as long as you respect me. You "saw" me at ANI, by the way. Seven Letters 19:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Luxembourgish
All I did was remove a category that doesn't exist and added a category that currently does exist. It wouldn't make much sense to revert my edit and populate a nonexistant category. What needs to be done is to take Category:Luxembourgian society to CfD to rename it to Category:Luxembourgish society. Then everything will be taken care of automatically following the discussion. Thanks. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 21:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Moritz, Landgrave of Hesse
You need to provide a source for his death. If you do not, I will have to reverse your entries claiming that he has died. Cordially, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, reference added. Seven Letters 02:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I knew him. Very sad to see him go. A most charming gentlerman. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, and in light of now learning you've lost a friend, my condolences. Seven Letters 22:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Belcourt Castle
I need help with a disruptive editor at an article but I so seldomly edit I don't know the proper procedure for reporting. Seven Letters 00:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. The first thing to remember in dispute resolution is to start simple. Read the disruptive editing guideline, to make sure it's that and not something else. Remember how differences of opinion should be handled here: BRD—bold, revert, discuss (so you don't inadvertently get sucked into an edit war. Discuss your concerns with the other editor on the article talk page (and the editor's talk page, if appropriate). This is generic advice, but I don't know the details of your problem. ANI is the last resort; it's not called the "drama board" for nothing :-). Learn to create diffs, so you have proof of whatever you allege. Hope this helps. Good luck and all the best,  Mini  apolis  12:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So much for the generic advice. I checked the article's history, and you should tone down your edit summaries; accusations of vandalism and SPA are not helping matters. The sole criterion of whether material stays or goes is verifiability; if you have reliable sources to back up your edits, you're on solid ground. I think you should discuss with Newportbelcourt on their talk page why they are displaying article-ownership characteristics, but you need diffs before you go any further. Not all SPAs are bad, but it remains to be seen with this one. All the best,  Mini  apolis  12:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Request to present your viewpoint on my talk page
I have summarised my point of view on the dispute involving ex-royalty on my talk page, I would appreciate it if you would briefly respond there, saying why you think I am wrong both in content and conduct, I would like an uninvolved person to look it over and tell me if they think I am out of line.ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrea von Habsburg
Hello 7 Letters, I don't understand why you undid those edits? I only changes their names to their oficially recognised names. Titles and privileges to persons are given by law and the sovereign and taken by law and the sovereign, see German nobility and Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution. So there is no reason to give them nonexistent titles and phantasy names used by some poeple who think German nobility and their titles still exist. All former titles are now part of the surname, therefore you can't translate or reorder them. I would not rename Margret Thatcher to Margarete Dachdecker. But you rename Karl Eugen Graf von Neipperg to Karl Eugen, Hereditary Count of Neipperg which is not his name. What peple call themselves in private can be mentioned, but they don't have any styles or titles by law. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should not wishful thinking. --EPsi (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * These families still use their titles socially and they are accorded to them by various other governments and courts. We are not bound by Austrian or German republic law when it comes to naming people. In many of these cases, one does not know exactly what it says on their ID. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a German or Austrian civil registry. Seven Letters 19:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If they use their titles in the family, so what? That's family business and can be mentioned. If governments or courts use these titles, OK, can be mentioned too. But the English Wikipedia is a fairy tale creating princes and princesses which do not exist in real life. Wikipedia is not bound to law but bound to reality. --EPsi (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to take your concerns to a forum better suited for this topic such as: here. Seven Letters 20:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the info. When you say "not prescribed", does that also mean "not proscribed"? As you say, they are not particularly controversial, and some are reverts of prior edits I made that I later reconsidered. Yours, Quis separabit?  01:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll reply on your page. Seven Letters 01:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I forgot, in my too brief reply (above), that I just wanted to add that I will desist from changing any more page names. I understand that if a page name has to be reverted then it will be, but I want to also emphasize, respectfully, that I made constructive and substantive edits to improve numerous such articles, i.e. text, content, tagging, reflinks, categories, etc, that I absolutely believe have improved those articles and stand by them. Yours, Quis separabit?  02:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)