User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 5

Simpson family
I'd like to invite you to join in this discussion. Thanks WilliamF1two (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, William, but I'd rather not. My opinion on the matter is clear. If the article is about a family (fictional or not), a family tree would be an immensely useful addition - even more so when the family is as large and complex as the Simpson family. WP:FANCRUFT applies to the family tree as much as it applies to the article about the family. It appears, however, that one user doesn't like it despite having no arguments against its benefits, so I won't bother anymore. You might want to try a RfC. Surtsicna (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your support. WilliamF1two (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Let me know if you try a RfC. Surtsicna (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cremations at Golders Green Crematorium
Category:Cremations at Golders Green Crematorium, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Stephenb (Talk) 11:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: DYK update
Assuming no major problems with the normal DYK process, the contents of Prep 2 should appear on the Main page as the 12:00 23 August 2013 (UTC) update. With our current run rate of two updates/day allows the queues can hold up to three days worth of updates and the prep areas an other two. This extends the potential lead time and allows up to schedule more than a day or two in advance. --Allen3 talk 12:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Islam and cats
Alex ShihTalk 00:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Maria-Pia Kothbauer
Alex ShihTalk 12:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Prince Stefan of Liechtenstein
Alex ShihTalk 12:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirecting it to delete it
I have no strong opinion on keeping Princess Marie Zéphyrine of France but I don't think your method of deleting it is a good idea for this kind of article. It makes sense for articles like Sancha of Portugal (born 1264) or Katun Anastazya of Bulgaria but for Marie Zéphyrine you should go through the deletion process, so other users can voice their regular opinions. You should have done that for Princess Angela of Liechtenstein too, but I really don't care about that one. The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete it. I merely redirected it. The articles about her parents contain almost all the information about her - which boils down to little more than her birth, title and death. That's not even surprising, don't you think? The article is just a piece of a big mess left by an indefinitely blocked user and his numerous sockpuppets. The case of Angela of Liechtenstein is crystal clear, however; see WP:BLPPROD, her lack of notability aside. Surtsicna (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Franz Joseph Bridge
Alex ShihTalk 12:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Style of the Dutch sovereign
Allen3 talk 00:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Marquis of Veere and Flushing
Allen3 talk 00:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Margaret of Burgundy.jpg
Did you notice that you upload over an existing image of Margaret of Burgundy, Queen of France?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. The Commons failed to warn me, and the file was incorrectly categorized so I didn't find it in Category:Margaret of Burgundy (1441). Surtsicna (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the upload history and the source links. It is all toward this image uploaded by User:Franzy89 on August 1. You uploaded over a file that already existed because you used the same name. You should revert and upload your image under another name like File:Margaret of Burgundy, Dauphine of France.jpg --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to do that. If you don't either, then it might be best to reupload the image of the Queen. Surtsicna (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
Category:People infobox templates Did you want to add one to the article?--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Henry III of England
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Diana Russell, Duchess of Bedford
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Coronation links
Sorry about revert just now: I should have read more carefully before surging into action. Link now intact, but piped for brevity. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem! I didn't realize right away that you only wished to remove the reference to the queen. Regards, Surtsicna (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Gus (polar bear)
Thanks for finding those images to illustrate the article! I found some more at Category:Central Park Zoo on Commons. Not sure if any of these are Gus – do you know? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Yoninah! I haven't got a clue, really. I searched FlickR for images of "Gus polar bear" and uploaded those that clearly identified the pictured bear as Gus. Those already on Commons could very well be of another male bear - or of Gus' partners, if sex is hard to determine. That's why I thought it would be best to have only images that undisputably depict Gus. Here are some more, in case you are interested to upload them, but I think those two are fine. This one might be worth uploading because it shows him swimming, unlike the others. Surtsicna (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for all your work. We can leave the images you posted and wait and see if other editors have more.
 * By the way, your talk page is difficult to navigate due to excessive length. You might consider archiving your posts and starting a clean page. You may also consider creating a sub-link to your user page on which to file your DYK nominations (see my user page for an example). This link is important when you want to list yourself at List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. Best, Yoninah (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is just incredible! A minute ago I was wondering how long it would be until someone suggested archiving this monstruously long talk page :D For the past few years, I've been archiving manually, but I just might bring myself to study automatic archiving. Surtsicna (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Alfonso de Bourbon
The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth
Not copied - all in my own fair hand ;-) It's still a work in progress - I'm looking for sources about the procession and the guest list. Thank you for your kind comments. Alansplodge (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Great - thanks for all your help with the article too. Alansplodge (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Royal touch
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Monarchs of Australia
The years cannot be indicated properly when such notes are added to one template alone. Moreover, as the Commonwealth Realms are all independent of each other, it doesnt seem just to add notes regarding other countries to just one country. Regarding the problem of templates clogging up bottoms of the articles in no time, we can create a separate section for Navigational boxes when their number becomes high (like how it is done already for the Queen Elizabeth II article)so that the section expands only when the user requires it. Its just Australia and New Zealand who have had many monarchs and so deserve templates of their own but the other Commonwealth Realms have had only Queen Elizabeth II as their sovereign so far and so 20 other templates will not be created in the near future. I personally think it would be very partial to include notes about being a head of state of New Zealand or Australia or Canada in a British template when the entire system of Commonwealth Realms is against the precedence of any country over another. What is your opinion?Gurumoorthy Poochandhai (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but I feel that we wouldn't gain much by creating and adding those templates. Isn't it better to have a few visible navigational boxes than a bunch of redundant and obscured ones? I know that all the realms are considered equal but I don't think that warrants so many identical templates. How about a Template:Commonwealth realms monarchs? It would have to be planned well, but could do it all. Surtsicna (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth II is the only monarch of the Commonwealth realms. We shouldn't have a template for a single item. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then how about Template:Dominions and Commonwealth realms monarchs? The name itself is irrelevant if the content is accurate. I'm not really pushing for such a template but I feel it would be a better solution than so many redundant navboxes. Surtsicna (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not in favor because the content of such a template would remain redundant to the content of other templates. DrKiernan (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Archiving
Hi, I'm not familiar with automatic archiving. I do it the simpler, cut and paste way. See WP:ARCHIVE. I've done this for all 9 of my talk-page archives. Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh! I've been doing the same for years! For some reason, I thought was the only one left archiving that way. Thanks for replying! Surtsicna (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, look at that! It's actually working. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! I'm also glad you restored your user page. I don't understand your DYK listings, though. Why don't you have a subpage on your userpage that lists the actual DYK template announcements, not the articles themselves? See my DYK subpage at User:Yoninah/DYK. To set up a subpage, see WP:USERSUBPAGE. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I might do that. It makes it easier to check hits and see hooks. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Royal touch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert White (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret of Burgundy, Dauphine of France
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Chadti Jawani
Thanks for the review. And you don't personally have to feel sorry for the delay. I guess no one simply happened to be there with interests in this topic. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 14:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, I just wanted to say that it's a pity it had to wait so long. They say patience is a virtue, but that doesn't help much when a deadline is approaching and no-one has reviewed your hook yet :D Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like not all royal families have huge fans and followers. Sad that we don't have her snap. I like her dimple. For my very first DYK nom, i was very much hyper to see no one review it. And i thought i have to do more QPQs. Ultimately i ended up reviewing 5 other hooks but got rejected anyways!  §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 17:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure royalty fans will swarm the article in a week. Perhaps some will be zealous enough to take a pic of her royal dimple on the wedding day and upload it on FlickR. I wonder if you can still make use of at least 4 of those hooks, if you haven't already. Surtsicna (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lets hope so. I haven't used them. But i review more hooks than i produce. So never bothered. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 17:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Linking
With the way you're pushing your desired changes, I don't see things ending very well. Whether you like it or not, the linking on those articles has been that way for quite some time. Unless there's some policy or guideline that's obviously being violated, given your bold alteration of the status-quo has been fairly quickly reverted, it's upon you to seek a consensus for the changes you want, not to revert war. This matter encompases a number of articles, so, I suggest you start a discussion in a central location, where you're likely to get more opinions from editors. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you see things ending very well? I hope you don't intend to keep reverting my explained edits without offering any (let alone sensible) explanation. The fact that the linking stood unchanged for some time does not mean that it should not be fixed or improved. It certainly isn't the standard or encouraged way to link. You will have a hard time finding a reference to "Queen Anne" or "Prince William", since "Queen Anne" and "Prince William" are much more natural and stylistically far superior ways to link. The article about Elizabeth II herself, a featured article, unsurprisingly mentions her grandparents as "King George V and Queen Mary". If you wish, I will try to find one of the featured article nominations in which a reviewer recommended piping links to include all parts of a person's name. If you wish, I will also start a discussion at the talk page of the Manual of Style, but the matter is simple and clear. I have no idea why this bothers you so much. You were opposed to piping because it supposedly increases article size (a very unconvincing article, if I may add), so I resorted to linking to redirects - which is perfectly acceptable and very often encouraged. You reverted that too, despite reading that the MoS strongly advises against "avoiding redirects". I truyl fail to understand why. Surtsicna (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not going to argue with you here over the merits or lack thereof of your changes. What has now become a more serious issue is the way you're pushing what you want into articles; it's arrogant and quite against both Wikipedia policy and guideline. The energy you're investing in imposing what you like better shows you're very bothered by it being some other way. Evidently, nobody else who's edited those articles has been as bothered by the linking as you are, since it's been the way you don't like for quite a while. Given that and my revert of your initial edits, it is, per WP:EP, up to you to start a discussion that will result in either the status-quo remaining, a consensus that favours your preferred way of linking, or some alternative: "Discussion is, however, called for if... someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page). A BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is used on many pages where changes might often be contentious." And, from WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "Be bold, [but] [i]f an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the article's talk page to discuss the issue."
 * If you're so confident in the superiority of your method, you should have no reservations starting an RfC on the matter somewhere. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing that bothers me is precisely your refusal to argue over "merits or lack thereof" of my changes. Am I to be blamed for expecting that you actually do say what's wrong with my changes? Certainly not. There is nothing arrogant about that, in my opinion. The arrogant thing to do is to continuously revert explained edits without adequate explanation and even without any explanation whatsoever. Although my edits are simple style and consistency improvements, I took an effort to explain them to you in great detail. May I (once again) ask you why you are so bothered by such edits? I've also cited numerous other examples that confirm that this way of linking is much more widespread and much more widely accepted, which means that consensus already does favour it. It's always been "Prince Charles", "Queen Alexandra", "King George III", etc. I will once again stress that I am completely puzzled as to why this non-issue has become such an issue. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I will argue the merits of lack thereof if you stop revert warring, leave the status-quo alone, and actually start a discussion on the subject somewhere. I have the feeling, though, that we aren't going to say anything to one another that we aren't already aware of. Hence, my suggestion that a discussion be started where other editors can give their opinions and whatever method the group prefers (if there is any) is the one that'll be used. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But why? Why leave the status quo alone when it's an inconsistent mess, referring to a "Queen Elizabeth" and a "Queen Elizabeth II" in the same sentence? It is purely disrespectful to demand that someone "leave the status-quo alone" without any explanation. The purpose of edit summaries is not to write the word "revert", but to explain why you are reverting. I have indeed said everything here, but you haven't said absolutely anything. Should I even expect you to finally start explaining in this desired discussion? Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the guidelines I pointed directly to advise you to do so. Neither your dislike for the status-quo nor the existence of other stuff justifies ignoring WP:EP, WP:EDITCONSENSUS, WP:BRD, or WP:TALKDONTREVERT. We also don't conduct discussions via edit summaries: "...do not try to discuss disputes across multiple edit summaries." So, don't get on my case about not saying anything; you've invested your energy in revert warring, rather than starting a discussion in which anyone can say anything. Are you so strenuously resisting doing so because you're not as confident in your opinion as you let on? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. I've directed you to guidelines that advise you against "correcting" redirects, but that meant nothing to you. You had no problem investing your energy into absurd claims such as that piping significantly increases article size. If you had enough energy and time to come up with something like that, it is impossible to understand how you didn't have time to give a proper reason (assuming you actually have one). Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBROKEN advises us not to change a redirect if we come across one; it does not say to create redirects for no reason or that newly made useless redirects are immune from being undone. The rest of your words are pointy nonsense.
 * Thank you for finally starting a discussion on the subject. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully in your next comment you will give me a proper reason for disrespectfully reverting the improvements I made. It appears that simply repeating that those improvements are unnecessary isn't getting you anywhere. Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Alice Vickery.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Alice Vickery.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Family tree
Hello Surtsicna,

Can you please help me a little in this article?

There are some people to be added into the family tree and I cannot connect them properly. I am not that fluent in coding.

GEORGIANJORJADZE 14:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! Neither am I, but I somehow managed to learn the family tree thing. What exactly is the problem? Surtsicna (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some more people to be added in the family tree and if you can add them please. I'd be very thankful. GEORGIANJORJADZE 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will list them here:
 * George I of Georgia's 3 more children to be added: Guarandukht, Martha and Kata
 * Bagrat IV of Georgia's 2 more children to be added: Maria of Alania and Mariam, daughter of Bagrat IV of Georgia
 * David IV of Georgia's 5 more children to be added: Vakhtang, son of David IV of Georgia, Kata of Georgia, Giorgi, Tamar and one more Tamar
 * Demetrius I of Georgia's 1 more chil to be added: Rusudan, daughter of Demetrius I of Georgia
 * Are you sure that adding them is a good idea? The tree could soon become plagued by a number of people of relatively low importance, which would make it hard to read. The article is, after all, a family tree of Georgian monarchs, rather than a family tree of the entire Bagrationi dynasty. For example, British monarchs' family tree is a mess and as such cannot serve any purpose. Kings of Sweden family tree is legible and useful; it illustrates the relationships between kings of Sweden without venturing into unnecessary detail (such as naming all children of all monarchs). Frankly, I think the family tree you created is perfect as it is. Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought everyone who was in the family should have to be in the family tree. But your opinion also makes point.
 * Also if you can add Ana Bagration-Gruzinsky in this as the princess and mother of Giorgi Bagration Bagrationi and David Bagration of Mukhrani in this as the prince and father of little prince as well. GEORGIANJORJADZE 16:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already added the dad and mom of Giorgi. GEORGIANJORJADZE 18:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I again need your help. I cannot connect the line of Princess Leonida Bagrationi to George Bagration of Mukhrani and can you please connect it if you can here? GEORGIANJORJADZE 22:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done! I hope that's what you meant. Surtsicna (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Is it possible to add a spouse of Princess Leonida which was Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia? The father of the current pretender to the Russian throne. GEORGIANJORJADZE 22:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks alot. How should I pronounce your name? GEORGIANJORJADZE 22:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * However it suits you! I doubt I'll ever have to correct you :) Surtsicna (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Surtsina, Can you please put in the family tree here in this article Maria of Alania as she was Byzantine Empress and needs to be there in the tree. She was daughter of Bagrat IV of Georgia and please connect her with family line if you can. GEORGIANJORJADZE 11:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm busy at the moment. Hopefully I'll have time later, but why don't you try it yourself? You are not bad at it. See also Template:Family tree. Surtsicna (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello again Surtsina, do you have time to help me a bit in the Georgian family trees? GEORGIANJORJADZE 19:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you need help with, exactly? Surtsicna (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please connect in this article Maria of Alania to her father Bagrat IV of Georgia. GEORGIANJORJADZE 20:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You've been doing a great job with the family tree so far. I'm certain that you can add Maria just as well as I can, if not even better :) Surtsicna (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyways. GEORGIANJORJADZE 20:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I'm really stuck. I really need your help. David III of Tao needs to be connected to the left to his father Adarnase V of Tao which comes from Bagrat I of Tao and not from Sumbat I of Iberia. And Adarnase and David which are on the right from the Sumbat needs to be removed as that is a mistake. It should be on the left on Bagrat I. Can you please help? GEORGIANJORJADZE 10:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done what I could. Surtsicna (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You've done it perfectly. Thanks Surtsi :) GEORGIANJORJADZE 12:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Alice Trolle-Wachtmeister
Hello! Your submission of Alice Trolle-Wachtmeister at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Allen3 talk 11:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Braganzas in the Spanish Line of Succession
I just read the talk on the Spanish Succession page. I now realize the complication that the line is. I will stop adding it to the Braganzas. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you,

Cristiano Tomás (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I too enjoy genealogy and think it would be cool if we could safely say that they are in the line, but that would be very misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Claire Lademacher
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kennedy Institute of Ethics
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Hi. Perhaps you are not familair with WP:3RR. I would helpfully suggest you self-revert your last edit on Katarzyna Weiglowa before anyone else sees it. As regards edits while a RM is ongoing, they generally should be declared and discussed in the RM. Also this would apply anyway, WP:BRD means never pushing through the same edit twice, let alone three times, without Talk page discussion. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! Yes, I'm familiar, but I did not break it. Please take a look at WP:3RR. Anyway, stating that the most commonly used name in English is incorrect should be accompanied by a source which confirms that; without such source, that's simply a POV. Such a POV should not be in the article, obviously, and especially because it might influence the outcome of the discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jane Stanhope, Countess of Harrington
The DYK project (nominate) 08:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ingemar Eliasson
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Return
Hi. We (you know who) would be very very (extremely) happy if you come back sometimes to visit us on bs.wiki. Pozdrav od tvoje raje.--C3r4 (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Julia Grace Wales
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Wisconsin Plan
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Hello. Your edits to the stable lead, stable for 3 years, of Katarzyna Weiglowa have been reverted for 2 reasons:
 * (1) firstly normal WP:BRD practice, there is no consensus for your edits and therefore you and your friend should not force them through.
 * (2) secondly it is not good practice to make major adjustments to the lead of an article immediately before placing a RM, particularly if those changes are in direct support of the RM and removing information counter to the RM. It is this second reason which is the more serious concern and is actually counter-productive to your own RM since the diff would certainly be considered both in RM closure, and also potentially in any eventual Move Review.

Please understand that consensus is always required for significant changes to the lead of an article, moreso when a RM is underway, and even moreso when the changes are made by the RM proposer. If you are in doubt on this point you may confirm it by asking at WT:RM. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. The article was "stable" only because it had hardly been edited in the past three years. It was also "stable" for three years (2007-2010) when you moved it from the original title to the present one. As for consensus, I didn't see anything on the talk page suggesting that what I removed had been inserted due to a previous consensus. The only "consensus", it appears, is the one you had with yourself. I strongly dislike what you are implying by referring to Qexigator as my friend; certainly neither of us is in the EEML-like habit of using cabals or "tag teaming". Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't; his cordiality in both cases is, of course, always much appreciated. The changes I made were NPOV-related; stating that the proposed name is incorrect would influence the outcome of a move request, but not stating anything obviously would not. You are well aware of that, but are nevertheless pushing your POV because you know that doing so will significantly influence the outcome in your favour. I would also like to ask you to take this discussion on the talk page, as I don't intend to have it here. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your mentioning of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Evidence out of nowhere suggests you have some feeling about East European editors such that might impede your editing of East Europe articles.
 * I have also noted your "(unsurprisingly, both published by Poles)" response - which is inappropriate. And the move-warring at Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki to Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki.
 * Given that there are no sources after 1918 at all in favour of the name you have proposed - and given that it is known to be incorrect - I invite you to withdraw your RM proposal, restore the article text you deleted that stated that the name you proposed was "incorrect" immediately prior to placing an RM, and hopefully that will the end of disruption to the article text. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Alice Trolle-Wachtmeister
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Query...
Do you think a category for debutantes presented at court would be workable? I've noticed that we've written a few biographies that it could apply to. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Gareth E Kegg! I find it difficult to assess which categories should be created; more often than not, it turns out that my category contravenes a guideline of some sort, so I usually stick to creating categories analogous to those that are already well-established. Is there anything similar to Category:Debutantes? On the other hand, you could give it a try and see if anyone complains :) Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Hungary daughter of Elizabeth of Bosnia
I noticed you had edited Elizabeth of Bosnia, so I was hoping you had some information concerning her daughter, Mary. Under the Louis I, Duke of Orléans article, it states that Antipope Clement VII issued a dispensation for Mary's engagement to Sigismund so she could marry Louis. I found a source stating a proxy marriage took place, but nothing to support Clement's dispensation. Do you have any information concerning this issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kansas Bear! You can find all information about those events here. It's properly sourced, but I am unfortunately unable to access pages 222 and 223 at the moment. Can you look it up? Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I can not view those pages either. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

British consorts
Regarding, perhaps we could use "Consort of the British monarch" in all these succession boxes and remove all the "as (Q/q)ueen consort" and "as (P/p)rince (C/c)onsorts"? That would be more concise and consistent. DrKiernan (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That would call for using "Monarch of the United Kingdom" instead of "King of the United Kingdom", right? We don't seem to have a problem with stating that James VI & I succeeded two women as king, or that Edward VII succeeded Victoria in her capacty as Queen of the United Kingdom, so we might be overdoing it a little bit with consort boxes. Surtsicna (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Roxelana?
Hi dear Surtsicna! I want to talk about the article of Roxelana. Why the title is this? It's not her real name, it's her nickname and we don't know what was her real name. So, shouldn't the title of the article be her official royal title, Hürrem Sultan? I really thought about it and it's the best title for the article. What do you think? Keivan.f Talk 15:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems sensible, if that is the most common name in English. Perhaps you should consider requesting a move, so that other users can give input, though I don't think it would be controversial. Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you, but I have a question. A user moved page Mahidevran to Mahidevran Sultan over redirect. How is it possible? For example I can't move Roxelana to Hürrem Sultan over redirect. How did he (or she) do it? Keivan.f  Talk 17:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that, if the redirect has been edited three times or more, you can no longer move over it without requesting a move. I'm not entirely sure about that, though. Surtsicna (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Maria of Bosnia
Hello! Your submission of Maria of Bosnia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please give this your immediate attention; this is the oldest outstanding DYK. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a new question that you would know the answer to. Please respond. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Basil I
Would you be interested in giving your opinion concerning sources on the Basil I talk page? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Maria of Bosnia
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Surtsicna,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Sheikh Maktoum.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on November 24, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-11-24. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)