User talk:Abdicata/Archive 1

Legitimists
Hello,

I undid your undoing of my edit. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legitimists#Split_in_Legitimist_Branches

The previous version was not neutral, as it failed to show the split in between Legitimists who support the French line (Orleans) and those who support the Spanish line (Bourbon/Anjou).

It is simply a fact that people who consider themselves Legitimists support rival claimants. This split is noted in the following articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_monarchs#Later_pretenders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimists#Dynastic_arguments See last paragraph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_dynastic_disputes#Legitimists_and_Carlists

CSBurksesq (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)CSBurksesq


 * My response is available on the Legitimists page. - Conservatrix (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Userboxes
I saw that you removed your question on my user talk page regarding userboxes and how to make and publish them - did you still need help with this? Happy to help you if do - just let me know :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I have just created six userboxes. Thank you for your concern. - Conservatrix (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You bet :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for the userbox offer. However while I am in sympathy with the Jacobite cause (one of my ancestors served under James II at the Battle of the Boyne) I am not Roman Catholic. So the papal arms would not have been appropriate. Thanks again and I appreciate your work on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you like a variant with the Royal Oak in place of the Keys of Heaven? - Conservatrix (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am fine with my current boxes. Thanks for the offer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Pending Changes reviewing on List of metro systems
Dear Conservatrix, you reverted my last edit on this page saying in the summary that it was potential vandalism and now I explain what I tried to do; John Peter Griffin (talk | contribs) changed twice (thrice since the last November) the "Year opened" figure of Vienna U-Bahn from 1976 to 1898 despite: In my last edit summary I was maybe a little blunt (albeit, IMHO, I didn't crossed the boundary of rudeness), but my counterpart never gave an adequate edit summary, disregarded the reply I gave him and tried to solve the inconsistency between is edit and the rest of the page merely deleting the reference that contradicts his point; in the end, I simply reminded the procedure Wikipedia suggests (i.e. seeking consensus on a proposed change discussing it on the talk page).
 * the "Legend" section of the article clearly explain that the year listed is the one that the system obtained metro standards, and previous uses of the infrastructure don't count;
 * the note next to the date clearly explain how the aforementioned general criterion applies to the specific Vienna's case;
 * the provided reference support the version I tried to restore, given that in the paragraph "Die Geschichte der Wiener U-Bahn" (The history of the Vienna subway, at page 2) the least recent opening year is 1976 for U4 line;
 * there's a very longstanding consensus on this matter.

I'm pretty sure that I did doesn't fall under WP:VD to any extent whatsoever, no matter how someone fiercely assumes bad faith and evil intentions on my part: on Wikipedia, the accusation of vandalism is deadly serious: if you write my edit is suspect vandalism, it means you suspect I deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose: do you still think it's what I was trying to do? Really? Now the issue about that page content was solved by another editor, but I'm quite annoyed by the way I've been treated and the gratuitous, defamatory allegation against me will stay forever in your unchangeable summary: it might be better if you were more careful in the future. 93.57.250.33 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * An unfortunate mistake. Best of luck. - Conservatrix (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Conservatrix, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Fernando de Sousa e Silva have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * My userpage clearly states that this article was migrated from the Portuguese Wikipedia. I will ping and  for their opinion. - Conservatrix (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of the content you included was identical to the copyright webpage http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1778.htm#Sousa, so I stand behind my decision. (This same website was used as a source at the pt.wiki.)By the way, your userpage is not the correct place to provide attribution for material copied from other compatibly licensed wikis or within Wikipedia. What you need to do is state in your edit summary that you've translated material and from which wiki. For example, use an edit summary like this: "Attribution: content in this article was translated from pt:Fernando de Sousa e Silva on February 11, 2018. Please see the history of that page for full attribution", and place on the talk page a template . Please see Copying within Wikipedia for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The FIU Copyright stipulates: "©1998-2015 Salvador Miranda. The content of this site is copyright. Permission is given to download and/or to print the text for both personal and educational use as long as the source and the author are indicated. No permission is given for commercial use." Are encyclopedias not educational resources? Are there not inline citations on the referenced page? - Conservatrix (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a compatible license, because our license allows all uses, including commercial uses. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation, even if you cite the source. You need to re-state things in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hours are spent translating these articles, . Then, seemingly from obscurity, an administrator impedes my volunteer work? How many years passed without these pages having been published? This obviously means nothing, as you will likely copy-paste a guideline in response, but these interruptions will drive my skillset to other venues as well as those of other valuable editors. - Conservatrix (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Here is our copyright policy, a Wikipedia policy with legal implications. Following this policy is not optional, so sorry. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. However I am going to defer to Diannaa who is far better versed in copyright than I am. If you want a second opinion the one I would go to is TonyBallioni who is also well versed in copyright issues. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I hate to bother, but there, he has been pinged. There is likely no other course of action than to revise the text. What an utter frustration to not only translate but have to recompose an article. - Conservatrix (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * is correct that Miranda is not compatibly licensed: Wikipedia requires that all content must be available for reuse for commercial purposes. Even if it were compatibly licensed, Miranda should not be used as a source on Wikipedia anyway if at all humanly possible. He's a librarian using the website his university provides him with to publish what is essentially a hobby. It is a self-published source for someone who is not an expert in the subject matter. Most of my content work on Wikipedia is spent cleaning up from people 5-10 years ago who used him to build out our histories of the early modern papacy and cardinals (I refer to it as Miranda-cruft).He is useful as a starting point, but anything you find in him should be cross-referenced to works by actual contemporary historians or older works that current academics view as generally reliable histories (Pastor being a 19th century work that contains some hagiographic language, but which is also considered by current academics to be pretty sound in terms of reporting of facts. I have links to all of Pastor's volumes in my sandbox, but he is best used in concert with current sourcing if possible. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The task of translating and reestablishing an article on another Wikipedia is demanding for volunteer work. My goal was to relocate, not refine, leaving the task of perfecting the articles to other interested and capable editors. - Conservatrix (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get and appreciate that. I was more venting my frustration with the use of Miranda as a source in general in Catholic historical articles: all but one of the GAs I have completed has been a Miranda repair job, so I tend to get frustrated when I see more of him being introduced into en.wiki, especially when he is the sole basis for an article. I get the different editing philosophies, however, and that is a side issue to the topic at hand. Namely, text from Miranda is clearly not compatible and Diannaa made the correct call here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was unfair of me to create work for other users. I will see about perfecting the articles of my own creation in the near future. - Conservatrix (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have altered some of the referenced article's wording per your request. Make me aware if this appeases the present copyright concerns or if further revisions are necessary. - Conservatrix (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Louis XIV of France
Hello. I've only started doing pending changes today, so I've not checked to see whether I'm obliged to inform an editor out of courtesy if I've unaccepted their accepted change, or whether you receive automatic notification of that reversal. Anyway, just to let you know I've reversed your assessment of Louis XIV of France as the latest change there clearly caused damage to one of the citations without enhancing the article in any way. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a commonly practiced courtesy. Thank you. - Conservatrix (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't take it personally
I hope that my decline didn't leave you feeling down or disheartened - it certainly wasn't meant to do this. I wanted to provide you with an honest evaluation of your contributions and help you to improve them. If you have questions or need any advice or input, my talk page is always open to you and you are welcome to ask me for help any time. Your contributions are much appreciated; we just need to shape you, adjust you, and tweak you to be better and make your good work shine more before we let you access more tools first ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "...shape you, adjust you, and tweak you"— you make her sound like a valve radio. How's bout we shape you— like a pretzel! 😜 😀   ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 08:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do it.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your assessment was fair. - Conservatrix (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Inquiry
No, I'm not an activist. I have an interest in conservatism-related articles. Actually, I have an interest in a lot of topics, classical music, film, programming. However, I've found that editing those areas can often be contentious, and stressful. Editors who work on music and film are extremely confrontational and opinionated and those articles are rife with edit warring and incivility. On the other hand editors who work on politics and religion are extremely cordial and even accommodating. Eager to compromise. When you work on Racial Views of Donald Trump or Pro-life Movement you experience an environment of cooperation, an esprit de corps that just isn't present at a battleground article like Beethoven's 9th Symphony. – Lionel(talk) 03:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Why waste spurning another man's victory when you can build your own? Versailles yet stands, whereas Saint-Cloud is a hillside. - Conservatrix (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Saint-Cloud is still there! (just kidding) You make an excellent point. My "Versailles".– Lionel(talk) 08:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Conservatrix. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AConservatrix enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Vandalism
User:NewEnglandYankee was rolling back vandalism from 2602:301:7768:bf70:d54b:3aa5:cf4f:332c they are also attacking Sons of Confederate Veterans There we could use some help if you don't mind. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I shall remain vigilant. The issue was discussed here. - Conservatrix (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)