User talk:FactStraight/Archive 1

Zita of Bourbon-Parma
You are doing nothing to improve the article by constantly reverting. Contemporary NYT articles show that she was also known as Zita of Parma and subsequently Zita di Borbone, Principessa di Parma. I have requested you point out what states that that name simply does not exist and you haven't done so, simply instead you regurgitate the same summary over and over. It seems you otherwise have no interest whatsoever in the article and that is why you are not offering further explanation. Charles 20:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC) II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta]] ==

hr:Tomislav II. as opposed to italian wikipedia also please see the discussion points that I have made. In brief - there was a Law decree on the Crown of king Zvonimir to which crown the right of rule has been transffered (like in the case of Crown of St. Stephen of Hungary). Also no ratification were predicted under the terms of that Law. Peter II of Yugoslavia has not been confirmed by the Croatian Parliament nor had any of his predecessors been confirmed. There is more facts to consider than just Italian Wikipedia. In Italy you have had 46 governments in 43 years (or simmilar statistics), you have right parties, autonomists, secesionists and left parties which sing praises to USSR to this day and age. They waive red flags with hammers and sickles. So obviously that "stream" of wiki-users on Italian wiki prevailed. -- Imbris (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:Canvassing by Imbris. Please use your own good judgment and facts in making decisions. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The users which are present on this Wikipedia for a meere two months and who claim that English Wikipedia should be like the Italian one should reconsider their sources, this is the only thing I tryed to do. If such users do not clarify their position we should call them for what they really are. -- Imbris (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ?? I most certainly do not want to make this Wikipedia look like the Italian one! Where do you get that from? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Louis Alexandre de Bourbon, comte de Toulouse
FactStraight, I have brought some changes to the article. One of them, a reference at Family and Death, is a link to an article in fr:wiki; although showing [1], the reference does not appear when clicking on [1]. Would you mind fixing it? I added the link to References. Thank you. Frania W. (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also added reference [2] next to [1] & nothing happens when clicking on either one. Frania W. (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization
I responded to your capitalization edits at Talk:Prince du Sang. WP:MOS-FR was specifically changed to allow the type of capitalization I use, which can be applied to the article Fils de France and all biographical articles of those who were actual Fils de France or Princes and Princesses du Sang. BoBo (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Prince of the blood
I did't write any article myself - as far as I can remember all I did was redirect the title away from the Prince section, to Prince du Sang. But strangely, I too have a memory of another, less French, article somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre
Would you mind taking a look at the last five revisions done on 12 May by 86.154.178.231 ? The changes do not bring anything new or noteworthy to the article; in fact they contradict what is already there & look to me as possible vandalism. Frania W. (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you FactStraight. Same "redundant or trivial information" is added to every article, making for unnecessary length, while interesting details are skipped - or removed without explanation, as was the case in several of my edits yesterday. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this update. I shall go thru the article & check with you before making any "conflicting" changes, or am in doubt about anything. Aurevoir!  Frania W. (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark (born 1971)
As you commented on the titles of Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark (born 1971) I don't know if you would be interested in commenting in the WP:RM. - dwc lr (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your stupidity
As you are aware, anything that i do gets reverted for no reason mainly by you; you use the WP:3RR the WP:SOCK and that stupid conciseness rubbish for your protection when really you know you are just doing it to be difficult and generally annoying.

As i saw at the top of your page, and i quote from another twit that You are doing nothing to improve the article by constantly reverting - this occuring regularly in the following:


 * Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti - probably the best example of your obsession with having everything that way you want it;
 * Henrietta Anne Stuart - i rearranged the page and added the Template:House of Stuart sidebar - clearly a tragedy;
 * Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre‎ - added titles and styles - where are they; i even tried to compromise by removing the stlyes and putting back the titles but once again you must have your way;
 * Victoire of France‎ - changed the awful layout along with her sister Princess Louise-Marie of France and Princess Marie Adélaïde of France

Why?

The latter is quite amusing to me proving that you dont even read the article - you simply revert back because I did it - all I did was move the Template:House of Bourbon (France) to a different part of the page! Then you and your chronic arrogance go and revert it under the claim that there are rv excessive, redundant trivia contained in other articles then as always you groan on an on about the usual rubbish with please don't violate WP:3RR or WP:SOCK WHAT IS YOUR POINT ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Shut up!

Where is this claim about the WP:SOCK even from - another one of your ridiculous  thoughts. I will not back down.

I have a small bit of advice for you: maybe you should read the WP:OWN article for your own clarification on the matter. You really are a bore; and a selfish one at that.

Sure our paths will meet again - Happy editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.178.231 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Truce?
Fair enough, i understand; one point that i must make clear though is that i will not resist from adding/editing information to things which i find interesting etc (i.e. Louise etc). Personally, it is not me who links everything but that is of little matter. Also i do cite and use very 'reputable sources' for all information that i have contributed be it books or another source.

I will however, in keeping with the WP:3RR and personal choice, not edit anymore today but will resume later tomorrow; i will add such things and i would rather that you say to me what is unnecessary. Such things as lists of siblings (as has been seen i have a rather bad habit) etc will be kept to a minimum. Your views will be seriously noted.

As i said Sure our paths will meet again - Happy editing - this time not in such a vicious tone. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.178.231 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, FactStraight, I'm going to include this in my 3RR report, regardless of the fact that it might have concluded in a better manner than it started. Charles 20:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Cadet branch
Nice edit.--von Tamm (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

reverts etc
where is the sense in constantly reverting everything i do:

1) i will only revert it back; 2) naturally you are able to edit and know exactly what you are doing; as a result i do NOT see why you do not just edit the relevant article how you see fit and actually do something constructive with your time 3) it is a bore etc

so, as has been noted rather than using excuses for reverting - it is dull. please do not irritate me it is not needed. if teh edit that i have done is so terrible then inform me on the talk page - its what its for and its not like you havent. 86.164.90.95 (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong person to accuse
I have received your message and responded to it on the sockpuppeting page. I am not your sockpuppeteer and don't like being so accused. Many times I have redone User:86.154.178.231 et al's work to make it more readable in English, and that is it. I frequently alter articles when the writing does not flow appropriately. I am not the person adding all the unsourced information about titles, wealth, residences and descendants to the French royalty articles BoBo (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

???
tbh i have a hangova so i cant be bothered to read your whole dramactic story......write less :):):) 86.164.90.95 (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Francization of Brussels
You suggested the title be changed, but seem not to have read to the end of the talk page. Care to check out the suggestions at the bottom and see what you think of them? Your opinion will help. Thanks,  Oreo Priest  talk 12:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm II
I've started a requested move on Talk:William II, German Emperor. Since you somewhat supported my proposed move on his grandfather's article, could you please cast a vote on this one? Emperor001 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't know canvassing was frowned upon. Emperor001 (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon
No problem. I'll leave a note on his talk page explaining him what "consensus" means. BTW is blatantly obvious that the anon = User:Tbharding as 86.164.90.95 edited his userpage twice. I'll explain to him a few other policies Wikipedia policies & guidelines. If he continues his disruptive behavior after several more warnings I could see a ban, but we'll see. I don't think he has ever even been blocked yet in the first place however. Khoikhoi 04:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Louis of battenberg
Well...On the one hand I am not impressed with the introduction as a description of someone who seems to have been a competent admiral rising to the very top. On the other, the intro of a wiki article is supposed to be a fair summary of the article. The article is quite top heavy on his royal connections and so, logically, the intro would mirror this. However, assuming the intro stays about the same length, I would drop the start of para 2 about the queen intervening in his career, this is basically gossip about did she-didn't she, and have a middle para about his career. Being top in liutenants exam with best ever seamanship, inventing battenberg course indictor (assuming this is true and significant, seems to be), and some other career highlights. The third para comes back to his royal connections and I think needs to stay, as a marker of his place in tthe separate field of being a royal. Sandpiper (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

REDFLAG
Please respond to the request at Talk:Gian Gastone de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re
I am not the source of this information! I do not even remember myself editing this article! Anyway, I found the legislative decree in a requiring subscription Greek legal site. I cannot find an online translation, but it is about the Greek royal family. Article 2 may be of interest, defining the members of the royal family: 1) all the legitimate (those born out of wedlock are excluded) descendants of King George I, if they still hold the Hellenic citizenship and the arising from the Constitution (before 1974) right of succession, 2) the legitimate husbands and wives of the aforementioned persons or their widowers and widows (not re-married).

I don't know if this helps, but I cannot translate the whole decree, unless you want me to search for something very particular. In any case, User:DrKiernan is an expert with kings etc. He may be able to help!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop the vandalism on Michael I of Romania
... or else you will be reported to the appropriate Wiki authorities. Thank you in advance for your (unlikely) cooperation! Nontrickyy (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not revert now or else you will be in violation of 3RR. Nontrickyy (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you report me for 3RR violation, I'll report you for sheer vandalism. Nontrickyy (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

About Prince Pedro de Alcântara editing
Hello! Why was I blocked? I tried to reason with "DWC LR" and he didn´t even bother to answer me. I´ll repeat in here what I wrote to him:

"Hello!

I´ve seen the text you´ve put in the article about Pedro, eldest son of Isabel of Brazil and that renounced to his position as a brazilian prince. I would like to make a few comments:

1) Famous brazilians historians like Gilberto Freyre, Heitor Lyra and João Camillo has written about the renunciation and Luís´s accession as the new Prince Imperial. You can see it in the notes with the name of the authors, books and pages.

2) The original text that says that Pedro declared that his renunciation was invalid and not hereditary came from an unknown (pro-gastonist) writer in an obscure monarchist page. So, a biased text.

3) The text written by this unknown author that we don´t even know if he (she?) really exist it is a plagiarism from the french magazine "Point de Vue" from January 29, 1988 with the sole exception of this text where Pedro of Alcantara gives his opinion about his renunciation.

We can´t use a text that is a plagiarism from another and that doesn't even cite its sources."

As I told him, it´s quite weird that famous historians like the british Roderick J. Barman (author of "Citizen Emperor" and "Princess Isabel: Gender and Power in the nintieth century"), Gilberto Freyre (author of "Casa Grande e Senzala"), João Camillo Torres (author of "Democracia Coroada" or "Crowned Democracy"), Pedro Calmon, Heitor Lyra and many others all consider as a fact the renunciation of Pedro of Alcantara while the wikipedia´s editors are using as source a text from an unknown person from an obscure monarchist website.

I´d like to suggest you read the article Luís, Prince Imperial of Brazil. Anyway, I hope I helped a little bit. Thank you very much,

--Lecen (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hee hee! I don't think you've been blocked. You were simply seeing on my page here an old announcement telling me that I was blocked, regarding a different article. You stopped editing the article after 3 reverts, so you should be fine (but I was blocked for only 3 reverts, even though that is allowed -- so do be careful). It is usually considered a no-no on English Wikipedia to revert an edit that has a footnoted source attached: there is no Wiki rule against using an "obscure" source, if it can be accessed by the public. Nor is there a rule against using a "biased" source, as long as the source does not attempt to conceal its bias. But Royalty Digest is not usually considered an insignificant or biased source (except that it is generally "pro-monarchy" rather than "anti-monarchy"). If, however, you can cite evidence that the information in the article has been significantly plagiarized or fabricated, that would be grounds for deletion. Every dispute between pretenders attracts supporters to their side of the issue: I would expect that one would be able to find legal scholars that both uphold and reject Dom Pedro de Alcantara's renunciation. Articles must be balanced, so they cannot only reflect one point of view on a pretender's claim. But it would strengthen his case if you could quote or paraphrase more of his supporters' in the article, and indicate their legal or historian credentials. Thanks for the quote from the Princess Imperial: I think it is very persuasive. FactStraight (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

--

Hello! You probably has already seen by now the letter of renunciation of dom Pedro de Alcântara and the letter sent by his mother, princess Isabel, to the Brazilian monarquistas. Now, did you read the reply sent by the monarchists? Here it is (it was written by João Alfredo):

"'Ma'am,"

"I have the honour to bring to Your Imperial Majesty and to the Emperor [Gaston, comte d´Eu] and to the princes my wishes that the projected matrimony of sir dom Pedro brings him happiness for his great heart, and also a happy congratulation to the promising wedding, already celebrated, of sir dom Luiz. [...]"

"As a brazilian and monarchist personally devoted to the Imperial Family, I have great joy of recognizing that all three princes are worthy of the great succession. From sir dom Luiz, that became the Heir Presumptive with the First-born´s voluntary renunciation, competently homologated by his August Parents, I know better, as I practised politics with him, the high capacity he has to assume such position. That God bless his activities from now on and the hopeful future it is my cordial and wishful vote.'"

João Alfredo it is the Counselor João Alfredo Corrêa de Oliveira, ex-prime minister that with Counselor Lafayette Rodrigues Pereira and the Viscount of Ouro Preto, both also ex-prime ministers, made the presidency of the Monarchic Directory. There is a copy of this letter and many others also in the Instituto de História e Geografia Brasileiro (IHGB) or Brazilian Institute of History and Geography (it has more than 160 years of existence and it is not a political institution).

Now take a look on what I found at the book "Monarchy: Truths and Lies", the "Bible" of the pro-Petrópolis branch (that is, dom Pedro de Alcântara and his son dom Gastão´s branch):

"After the renunciation act - although invalid, this act - Dom Pedro de Alcântara persisted in keeping his renunciation, abstaining from exerting the Headship of the Imperial House? Yes, affirmative."

"Dom Luiz received the Headship in a pacific, consensual and 'just' way? Yes, that´s also affirmative; and even that after the death of dom Pedro de Alcântara sir dom Pedro IV [he refers to dom Pedro Gastão, eldest son of dom Pedro de Alcântara and that passed alway last year] has made his claim, that doesn´t mean that it neutralize the exercise of the Headship by Dom Luiz up to 1920, and Dom Pedro Henrique, at least up to 1940.'"

p.248 (fifth and sixth paragraphy)

It´s interesting to see that in this book, seen as a "Bible" by the pro-Petropolis branch followers, it aknowledges the fact that until his death dom Pedro kept his word and that at least until 1940, the Vassoura branch was generaly accepted as the legitimate heirs. --Lecen (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Princess Cristina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies
FactStraight, under family laws, Cristina was eligible to be heiress to the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies which is why the article is relevant. I do agree that it should be better sourced and I will work to resolve that issue. This article was 'translated' from the Italian version, but I requested that it be reviewed by Italian translators for a better translation. --Caponer (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)