User talk:Mjasfca

Like Rio Grande????

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Alexandra
Please stop adding trivial unsourced details about irrelevant people. DrKay (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

ALEXANDRA....your reversals of my additions
It is not more detail than is present in the articles about her siblings. Why is it comsifered trivial here, but not for her brother, Prince Valdemar??? Also, it is the 4th generation, the same as in the Ancestry sections of most other articles on royalty, i.e. standardization. And finally, I would not consider Queen Alexandra an irrelevant person. More more trivial than her other siblings. Mjasfca (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not Alexandra who is trivial and irrelevant. Her great-great-grandmother Countess Maria Eleonore of Lehndorff is. Featured articles are held to a higher standard than other articles, such as Prince Valdemar. DrKay (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Alexandra
I still disagree with you and the edit you made. I didn't add or make an adjustment to an article about Countess Maria Eleonore of Lehndorff, which, yes, would be abt an unimportant person. I made an addition to the article abt Alexandra, adding the same exact information that is contained in the articles about her father, Christian IX, and her sister, Dagmar. Why is it trivial and unnecessary re: Alexandra, but not the other two? Or should I, for the sake of accuracy and cobsistency, then go ahead and delete the same information from the Ancestry details of each of Alexandra siblings? Mjasfca (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it should be. DrKay (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Your answer....
.....makes no sense. It is vague. Which of my three questions are you "answering"? Mjasfca (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The last. DrKay (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

So.....
.....now can you point me to a guideline in the official rulebook that clearly states that all Ancestry sections for notable people are required to go back for no more than three generations? Mjasfca (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No. There isn't one saying it should be extended either. DrKay (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

So.....
....then, is there any rule saying that it should be any certain number of generations? 1? 2? 3? 15? Let me answer that for you - No, there isn't. Therefore, this is all just your personal opinion and based on nothing more than your personal preferences. And I say that because you gave me a completely different reason for removing the add'l info I was adding to the Ancestry of Queen Victoria. There you said nothing about trivial people or invited information. Inconsistent. You merely give any reason to justify what you want done. In closing, I'm not going to readd the info to the article on Queen Alexandra because, quite honestly, I don't care *that* much. But your preference, in light of the fact that there are literally HUNDREDS of entries with 4 generations of ancestors, is no more right or wrong than anyone else's. Mjasfca (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason for removal on Victoria is the same. I've just used different words to describe the same flaw: "doesn't deserve or need expansion" and "remote and irrelevant" mean the same as "trivial". DrKay (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)