User talk:Retireduser8673

There is no point in leaving messages on the talk page, that page will not be read anymore.

Welcome!
Hello, Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to User talk:Rodw. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! &mdash; Rod talk 18:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Dates of death
Hi. Regarding your latest edits to the article Agnes of Leiningen, please note that English Wikipedia does not use the † symbol to indicate date of death. If you read MOS:DATETOPRES this helpfully clarifies the various conventions in use. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * During the 25 years I have been writing texts (not for Wikipedia) I have always used the symbol † as that symbol is internationally recognised. I've read the page you have suggested me, but I saw no reasons given not to use the symbol. Therefore I consider it a rule not necessary to follow. Non-native English speakers will not understand the abbreviation d. immediately while they immediately will understand the symbol †. And when the text is in between brackets, and thus has to be as short as possible writing died isn't right for me either. I used the symbol in the articles I have written or edited on both the Dutch, the German and English Wikipedias. You are the first who want it to be changed.
 * I noticed that you didn't have the patience to wait for a reply from me, but already changed the article you mentioned above. And therefore deleted the consistency between the articles I have already written and edited. For me the reason to immediately end all my further contributions to the English Wikipedia. I have no lust in arguments, edit wars, etc. I leave it to you to try to better the very low quality of the articles about the members of House of Nassau, as I won't do it anymore. Regards, --Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to hear of your decision but there is no real discussion to be had about this particular issue: en-Wiki doesn't use that symbol. It is not a personal fad of mine. You mentioned consistency: the required consistency is across Wikipedia, not across your articles, so I'm afraid it's a rowing boat vs an ocean liner. I hope you might reconsider at some time in the future but if not, thanks for your contributions. Ingratis (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am aware it's not your personal opinion, but the policy of the English language version of Wikipedia. My apologies if that was not clear from my previous message. Yes, I mentioned consistency. But I did not mean just across my articles, I meant across the whole of Wikipedia. Which means I do not consider each language version as a separate island with its own set of rules. Anyway, you are correct that "it's a rowing boat vs an ocean liner". So, I won't put anymore energy in it and leave the English language version for what it is. Regards, --Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Walram I, Count of Nassau
Hi there R&NE. I am aware that you already took your ball and went home, but I still wanted to show you something neat:

At the Walram page, you had added a reference mentioning conflicting information regarding a landgrant in different WP articles. This was deleted by someone as WP can't be a source for itself. I changed the content to a note instead, and now it looks better and doesn't accidentally violate any rules. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  17:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your message. I really appreciate it that you took the time to inform me how this should be solved properly. Regards, Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Elizabeth of Leiningen, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. --John B123 (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Block me when you want, I don't care. It's not me that's acting disruptive, it's the persons that are not interested in good articles in a good order. That manual of style can only be made by people who have no knowledge of professional editing. But it's clear to me. My decision to return to Wikipedia after the nice help above was the wrong decision. Wikipedia is not interested in good articles, it's only interested in acting like dictators. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * John B123 is not an administrator and does not have the power to block users. I'm an administrator and wouldn't block you for those edits or call them disruptive but we do have Manual of Style/Layout saying the External links section comes last. However, you may have misunderstood the purpose of that section heading. It is for external links which are not used as sources in the article but contain additional information that can be helpful to readers. Sources used in the article belong in other sections regardless whether or not they include links to external sites. You appear to have used them as sources so they can be moved to the sources section. I hope you stay. It's hard to completely avoid disagreements when people can edit the same articles but your interests appear to be in uncontroversial areas where editors usually get along fine. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No of course I will not stay. Although I have no problems with placing external links at the end of the page and moving links that contain quoted sources to the paragraph sources. But I do have problems with the way users work here. And I do have problems with changing the genealogical symbol †. Therefore I have requested to delete the articles I wrote from Wikipedia. And I have noted which articles I believe to be corrupted on my user page. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 137 had some arguments against †. It's more commonly used in German (and Dutch?) than English. It looks like a Christian cross to many readers who may not want religious symbols in non-religious articles. It isn't pronounced by a common screen reader and maybe others so blind users will not hear it. "died" is a short word anyway and understood by everybody who can read English, unlike †. We do have a lot of rules and guidelines. You don't have to know them but editors who do know them have the right to change articles to follow them. There isn't time to start a discussion and wait for replies every time an editor wants to make a small change like "†" to "died". If you dislike a rule then you can suggest changing it at the talk page of the rule. With six million articles and thousands of editors, it would be chaos if everybody just ignored the rules and did whatever they personally prefer. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going discuss something which is obvious. Facts should be known at a project that claims to be an encyclopedia. The symbol † (dagger) is not an christian symbol. Period. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I said it looks like a Christian cross to many readers, and there were other arguments. We write for the readers, not ourselves. If a dagger makes many readers think we have a religious bias and it can be avoided by just saying "died" then where is the harm? And while a dagger is not a cross, its popularity as a symbol for death may be tied to the resemblance. Is a dagger commonly used for death in non-Christian countries? I don't know but I would guess less commonly than Christian countries. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Look like is not important for a project that claims to be an encyclopedia, only facts are. Simple. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you want to link your original article versions on your user page. In case you don't know, you can click the "View history" tab and then a time stamp to get a link to a page at the time, e.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adelheid_of_Katzenelnbogen&oldid=923810841 Version by the creator]. It can also be wikilinked like Version by the creator. All articles will be edited by others than the creator. No one owns an article per Ownership of content, and above the edit area it says "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions". You made nice articles and it would be a shame to lose you but if you don't want others to edit your work then you will have to publish it elsewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No I don't want to link to the original texts, I wanna show what rubbish Wikipedia users make of original articles. I don't mind that my contributions are edited when it concerns fixing typos, adding new information, etc. After all, I'm only human and do make mistakes too. Such edits are welcomed by me. But those edits I did not see. So I have no place here, even when you think I write nice articles. In Dutch we have a saying which literally translates "throwing pearls to pigs", and that is my feeling concerning my contributions to Wikipedia so far. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The current versions look so much like your original articles that I think your point will be lost. You write about niche subjects so it may be a while before somebody adds new information. Many here would count edits to follow our manual of style under "etc". And I do see a few fixes like a typo [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agnes_of_Leiningen&diff=914780629&oldid=914648654] and a link [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diether_of_Nassau&diff=923250811&oldid=921099489] to elector. Cast pearls before swine is from the Bible PrimeHunter (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can try as hard as you like to make it look less bad, I will not fall for that. I see exactly the same thing happening on the Wikipedia in Dutch and in German. The chances of me ever believing again that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia are less than zero. And yes, I may be an atheist, I know the saying originates from the bible. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, if you are not willing to work with others collegiately, then it is not the place for you, you might be better off publishing your work on your own webspace where you can keep control of it, and who knows, we might even use you as a reliable source one day. Theroadislong (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Wikipedia is not the place for me. Not because it's a collaborative effort, but because the way it's implemented.
 * If I ever will publish my knowlegde about European Royals on the internet or in print, I will make very sure to copyright it in such way that publication on Wikipedia is prohibited. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest Charles Cawley?
Your efforts seem to involve promoting the work of Charles Cawley and linking to his website at every opportunity, is there a conflict of interest here? There are also some that think his work is rather slipshod too, here for instance Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Promoting? I use the website as it's a very good source of information for medieval nobles and royals. That doesn't mean everything on that website is correct of course. No source is 100% correct. I have always used multiple sources to check individual sources. And that I do for over 35 years. For the record, I not in any way related to mr. Cawley or his organisation, I have never met him, nor did I have any contact with him. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Royalty & Nassau Expert
User:Royalty & Nassau Expert, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Royalty & Nassau Expert and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Royalty & Nassau Expert during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

about deleting information?
You say "The corrupting is not about the reordering of the appendices (except the first ones) but about deleting information done at the same time. Which makes that the references are no longer understandable by the readers." PLEASE can you point to where this was done so it can be fixed, thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleting the name of the author who compiled the website is the corrupting part I was referring to. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added the author back for you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I noticed. Thanks for that. I know I may appear hyper critical, but as a professional editor I have to be. I noticed inconsistencies between the way you restored it and another user did. I don't mind which of both ways is chosen as the preference, but I do hope only one way will chosen.
 * Can you explain why you added the comma in the article Walram II, Count of Nassau? Consistency it says, but that cannot be right. It's either Walram II of Nassau or Walram II, Count of Nassau. You don't write Elizabeth II, of the United Kingdom either. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies. The article's title is Walram II, Count of Nassau so the first mention of the article's subject is usually the same hence Walram II, Count of Nassau, but I hadn't noticed that the first mention was actually "Walram II of Nassau" we usually start an article with the exact name of the article's title. Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the explanation and the revert. I don't know why there is a difference between the article title and the first mention of the subject. I can only notice that it excists since the article was created in 2005. Apparently (almost) all articles about royalty and nobility have that difference. Royalty &#38; Nassau Expert (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)