User talk:Feuerrabe

Hi. When it comes to British (as not restricted to English) Royalty, do you care to have a look at this? Or | this? Maybe the latter is of less interest for you. But I found it | here so it seems to qualify through "censorship" by those ignoble... ;-) Regards, --Klingon83 (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Max Mosley
Hi. There has been an argument over the article on Max Mosley, son of the 6th Baronet Mosley, over something so simple as whether if we should include the name of his parents in law, or father in law, and information on his own children. They even claim he's not nobility. It's a false question, but some people, from outside lineages' issues, insists in not adding them. The discussion was brought up by User:4u1e on User talk:Konakonian, Talk:Max Mosley and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. I'd thank you that you'd join with your good judgement. Konakonian Konakonian (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, if it's still any use. Sorry for not answering earlier, I was away for the past week with no internet. --Feuerrabe (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Konakonian (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to remind you of this pointless but paradoxally for that reason important discussion. I know you have a lot of work and you can't allways be on wikipedia, don't take this personally. I respect your work and knowledge and I'm only recalling you because of the risk of reversion of the edits that can happen at any time. In either case, I wish you good luck with any of your work. Konakonian (talk) at 195.245.149.70 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, thank you for standing up for me on that suckpuppet thing. User:Kww seems to have blocked me without any reason. For what I've read about sockpuppetry it seems that either because I'm making edits to the same vast area of knowledge, or not so much, or because I'm using a public computer at my workplace that a blocked editor might have once used, maybe years ago, I'm getting blocked too. If this is the case, I've seen an IP in Bahrein or something being blocked for vandalism and when someone complainted that it would block half of the people of that country's city where they were, the Administrator simply answered that he or she should create an account. I have mine blocked. I don't want to believe that I am the only person in my country to like the Tudor period, among other things. It makes no sense to be mistaken with the person whose edits I've actually sometimes corrected or improved. You and others corrected and completed my edits and you weren't accused of anything. That is, people can't be blocked just because they make edits edits on articles where someone else also did. Also, apparently the absence of User:G.-M. Cupertino from this particular discussion if not anything else at least to stand for me might be dued to the fact that his discussion page where he is allowed to appeal from his blocked was blocked from being edited by him thanks to an overzealous Administrator and probably can't even edit his own user page, otherwise he'd most likely have done it by now. 195.245.149.70 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Succession box
Hello! I would kindly ask you not to go around accusing anyone of vandalism. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence. I never disputed Arthur's status as heir. I only disputed the need for a succession box for every detail in the person's life. The list of heirs to the English throne is largely based on original research and is, for most part, completely anachronistic. We have a succession box for his titles. We do not need one for the position of the King of England's first son, the Queen of Castile's favourite son-in-law, the Duke of Burgundy's most senior brother-in-law, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider your edit to be highly disruptive. List what you consider 'original research' in the succession box of Arthur Tudor, please, because I have a good library of books on him by scholars, which confirm every single thing that box listed before your edit. Also, I would like to know what your reasoning for changing 'Henry, Duke of York' to 'Henry of Greenwich' is. No scholarly work has ever called him that, it rather seems to be your personal invention.--Feuerrabe (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider your ignoring a behavioral guideline to be highly disruptive and your refusing to assume good faith quite upsetting. I never claimed that anything in the succession box in the article about Arthur was original research. I clearly referred to the list. As I said, I have nothing against using succession boxes for actual titles, such as Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall. I only mind using them for trivia, especially if it's also redundant. The titles of Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales already describe him quite clearly as heir apparent and we do not need another special succession box that calls him "heir to the English throne" - otherwise we might add "heir to the English claim to the French throne", "heir to the Lordship of Ireland", etc. As for "Henry of Greenwich", it is not my invention, but I don't really care how we call him. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You claimed original research in your edit summary without mentioning any list. So I naturally assumed you meant the edited article. If you consider the succession boxes 'absurd' then I hope you have discussed this somewhere with other users and reached consensus with them for the sort of sweeping changes you are currently making. Those succession boxes for heirs are widely used after all and were surely decided on by some prior consensus. Personally I don't care whether they are there or not. (Arthur's box is missing his title of Earl of Chester now, btw) As for 'Henry of Greenwich', that name is so unusual (I consider one book from the 1870ies hardly representative), his actual title of Duke of York is much more appropriate imo or even 'Henry VIII'.--Feuerrabe (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: I see why you would want to remove a succession box as heir of England from Mary Stuart's article for example, but there are problems imo with removing them altogether in all articles. Edward VI for example was heir to the englisch throne but never officially installed as Prince of Wales. What do you do in such a case?--Feuerrabe (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary says quite clearly: "the succession box is absurd anyway and most of the list is based on strictly forbidden original research". I've seen no consensus to put the succession boxes. All I've seen is people complaining about the list's inaccuracy. It is obvious to me as well, and so is its anachronism. As for Edward VI, he was undisputably Duke of Cornwall. That title highlists his status as heir apparent quite enough. Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that list you were referring to in the edit summary was supposed to refer to an article, as I had never seen that article. I assumed you meant the list of titles in the succession box. You might want to link the article you were referring to in other edit summaries for such changes you make, because I am pretty sure I am not the only one who hasn't seen it. But frankly all in all it looks to me as if the problems with the article List of heirs to the English throne and its questionable content should be discussed and edited first.--Feuerrabe (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussions have been attempted, most notably by User:John Kenney, who noted six most notable issues last year. However, other users don't seem to be that interested. Anyway, do we agree that the "heir to the throne" succession box is redundant to "Duke of Cornwall" and "Prince of Wales" boxes? Surtsicna (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How big can a picture be?
Just wanted to show you this file: lG, --Klingon83 (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Henry VIII
You're right to think that the issue box needed tying to proper sources (as with anything), but I think that cause would be better favoured if we could find a paper or book that systematically addressed the issue. In particular, it looks as if the Venetian source is primary (you'll forgive me, I haven't actually checked). Anything over such a controversial matter, adding in a foreign relations element, would be better supported by modern sources. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Grandiose, I can give a modern source for that as well. Practically all the modern historians, including Eric Ives, David Starkey and the author of a Catherine of Aragon biography, Giles Tremlett, say the same. I'll look it up later today, when I've got the time. By the way, I think the children of Mary Boleyn should be removed from that box altogether as there is really no evidence except for rumours and speculations that one or both of them were Henry's and there are more supposed illegitimate children other than those two.--Feuerrabe (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, any of those would be better. As to the inclusion of specific children, I wouldn't rush in. Such things will always be a percentage play (i.e. it is unlikely to be his son, or likely to be, or very likely, etc.) and then we have to consider whether, notwithstanding they are unlikely to be, their icnlusion is meriterd because of their contemporaneous or subsequent assocation with Henry; whether, as an encyclopedia, it would be most useful to include them and express (even significant) doubts (in line with what most books do - they don't merely omit them from consideration). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Careys have no place in this list next to acknowledged children in my opinion and would be better mentioned in an extra paragraph along with more speculated offspring. There is no doubt about the paternity of the other children in the list after all and an inclusion of the Careys in it (when no printed encyclopedia does the same) gives a false impression of a supposed paternity by Henry VIII it would seem to me - in fact that status is rather doubtful or at the very least unprovable. At least that is the way I see it - I don't plan on making such an edit actually, I only happened upon the section by accident today. ;-)--Feuerrabe (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Credo
Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Found You!
Only took me around 10 minutes... ;) MrMarkBGregory (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I clearly need to work on my camouflage skills! Feuerrabe (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)