User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 6

Calling members of deposed German ruling families "HRH" etc
German royal titles were all abolished in 1919. It is misleading and false to label hundreds of people "HRH" or "HH" or even more ridiculous, "HI&RH" on WP, they are no more entitled to such honorific prefixes than my cat. Saying "they are not false because they are used that way " doesn't cut it for me,such prefixes should not be used except when they have legal status as part of somebody's name, which has not been the case in Germany since 1919. I will not accept this, I will take this to as many dispute resolution boards and as high up as I need to. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do so. Wikipedia is based on sources, not on national laws, which is why Kim Jong-un is not known as dearest eternal president or whatever they have to call him over there. I sincerely doubt you will be able to challenge WP:Verifiability, but give it a shot. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should just remove POV and Disputed tags because you think they are "ridiculous" or "make a mess". I do dispute those articles and templates, vigorously,and if you look at the talk page for Franz, Duke of Bavaria you will see that before I made any of these changes I raised the issue there saying  "It would be in line with WP policy if I were to be bold, move the article to "Franz of Bavaria", delete all that piffle about living German people who are royal highnesses" and Dougweller replied "I agree we should do that."  Then I raised the issue of calling people by non-existent royal titles and with phoney honorific prefixes at the BLP noticeboard but I see you have replied there so you obviously know about it, and once again Dougweller agreed that all that stuff should go.Smeat75 (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A comma does not make an article factually inaccurate or less neutral. It makes it grammatically correct. The man is either "Franz, Duke of Bavaria" or "Franz Herzog von Bayern". He is known in English as "Franz, Duke of Bavaria", while his legal name is "Franz Herzog von Bayern". Obviously, English Wikipedia is going to use the English language name. "Franz Duke of Bavaria" is neither here nor there; it is nothing but a rape of orthography. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think calling him "Franz, Duke of Bavaria" makes it look like "Duke of Bavaria" is a title, but it is not, it is just a translation of his last name. That is why I think it is biased and inaccurate, Dougweller agreed, you obviously do not but you should not just remove the tags because you don't agree, the tags are supposed to generate a discussion. And I don't care if putting "disputed" into that ridiculous infobox "Bavarian royal family" "makes a mess" out of a pretty list of Her Royal and Imperial Highnesses, that's just a lot of lies, there are no such things, quite honestly I think this fantasy world of pre-WWI royal titles being applied to living people on WP needs to be disrupted.Smeat75 (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But we shouldn't translate last names. Mihály Kovács does not become Michael Smith, nor does Stefan Schumacher become Stephen Shoemaker. Franz is known in English as Duke of Bavaria, not as Herzog von Bayern. I've explained it already; removing the comma makes the article an orthographical horror, not more neutral or more accurate. As for your statement that you do not care about creating an unnecessary mess, please bear in mind that you should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you on several things, but I am afraid that you are being a bit too extreme. Wikipedia does not say that, for example, Ernst August is legally a prince or a Royal Highness. Wikipedia says that he is styled as such, which is certainly true. It's that simple. Surtsicna (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

3RR at Franz, Duke of Bavaria
You are both at 3RR. The comma is clearly disputed. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Request to present your viewpoint on my talk page
I have asked the person I mentioned to have a look at the dispute I have been involved in yesterday and today, she said she would.I want to focus for right now on the issue of those navboxes labelled "Prussian royal family" etc with a list of HRH's and HI&RH etc. I don't expect her to follow all those pages, I thought I would briefly present my viewpoint on my talkpage and I wonder if you would be kind enough to present yours there. I want "the other side" to be presented by an advocate, not by me, and I would like you to state for her how you think I have been unreasonable, or out of line, or a total troll, or whatever, completely honestly. I don't expect you to be bound by what she says, but I commit myself to accepting her advice, if she says " you are out of line" I will drop it, if she says "you are making good points" I will continue. Will you do that? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have summarised my viewpoint on my talk page, I would appreciate it if you could briefly summarise why you think I have been wrong both in terms of conduct and the subject matter there. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for inviting me. I really wouldn't like to comment on your conduct, and I cetainly wouldn't call you a troll. I asked you to slow down, but did not entirely disagree with you. Anyway, all I wanted to say can be found on talk pages. Surtsicna (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

King of Croatia
The title "king of Croatia" was also just a part of the full titulature of the king of Hungary (like Dalmatia, Rama, Bulgaria, Serbia, Galicia, Lodomeria and Cumania), as there was no separate coronation. Is it necessarily important to indicate this title in the succession boxes in the case of Coloman's successors (from Stephen II)? --Norden1990 (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't care. I've always avoided both adding and removing the Croatian title, in order to avoid getting into unnecessary disputes. Surtsicna (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

To let you know that I have asked Dougweller's advice about disputed tags on Franz, Duke of Bavaria
You can see what I wrote here .Smeat75 (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Answering your question about the King of Sweden's children
Hello, you asked me twice about the children of monarchs being princesses, etc., but I didn't feel comfortable going into that on a third party's talk page, so thought I would reply here. You said "is there a law that says the King of Sweden's children are princes(ses) with the right to be styled as Royal Highnesses?" and then "I am still waiting to be told what law entitles the King of Sweden's (or the King of Norway's, or the Queen of Denmark's) children to be "legally" known as princes(ses) and Royal Highnesses. You will find that no such laws exist, so I wonder if you will push for renaming those people as well." You obviously know a very great deal about these matters, I am sure you really know that reigning Kings and Queens are allowed, as part of their "job", to create titles for members of their families, they sign a piece of paper and then their granddaughter or whoever is created HRH Sophia, Princess of Somewhere. There does not need to be a law passed to make that person a Prince or Princess, they are created one by "letters patent" (at least that is the term used in Britain, I am not sure about the term in these other monarchies, I would have to look it up.) But in the case of Germany, a law was passed in 1919 which specifically abolished all of those titles, and in other monarchies when they became republics also - Noble Privilege by M L Bush, Manchester University Press, 1983 "the abolition of titles coincided simply with the removal of the monarchy...The fall of the Habsburgs...and their replacement by republican governments...directly caused the elimination of noble titles in Germany".Smeat75 (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The monarchs of Scandinavian kingdoms sign no such piece of paper. They have never done that. There is not a single document that entitles their children to be known as princes or Royal Highnesses. The King of Norway, furthermore, is not allowed to create any title. Obviously, a law cannot "abolish" something that a law did not create. Surtsicna (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At any rate, the answer to "I wonder if you will push for renaming those people as well" is "no."Smeat75 (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As I expected. Now I wonder why. Neither Princess Estelle nor Duke Franz have legal right to the titles they bear. I don't see why we should employ double standards. Surtsicna (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you refusing to accept the compromise reached at MOS talk?
I see you are removing the statement that it was agreed between several users at MOS talk - "a compromise has been achieved on the main point at issue,which is that "These are traditional, rather than legal, styles and titles sometimes used by courtesy" is allowed to be inserted once into an appropriate place in relevant articles." As soon as FactStraight offered that I accepted it, you must have seen that but waited for the RfC to be closed before you gave any sign that you would not agree. Your objection to that clarification is that it is "redundant", it is redundant to you because you are an expert, this is not a specialized heraldry site or something, it is for presenting clear information to a general readership. I do not want to argue with you about royalty any more, the question is now why you are refusing to accept consensus, it wasn't just between me and FactStraight,user Hordaland for instance said "The statement, also quoted above, "With respect to these articles, it is reasonable to insert a disclaimer ..., as appropriate, that any titles and styles are traditional courtesies rather than legal...." (insert = mention within article text), would be fine as a guideline but not strict policy. I wouldn't worry about the navboxes (no disclaimer needed there)." That is what has been accepted, please don't force any more battles over this.Smeat75 (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI I have also left a message about this at user FactStraight's talk page .Smeat75 (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am not an expert. Secondly, I have no idea why you thought you could close an RfC and claim that a compromise of any sort was reached when it was not. Thirdly, referencing discussions between Wikipedia users in article texts? I cannot believe you seriously think that's OK. I won't even mention that the phrasing is misleading (since it implies that titles and styles are generally set in law). Honestly, I believe FactStraight expected such insertions to be removed - and rightly so. For what it's worth, I was not the only one to remove it. Surtsicna (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at the page histories of where that sentence was inserted today, you will see that they were not done by me. I had a feeling you were not going to accept this, I did not want to leave that RfC and immediately start fighting with you again.FactStraight appealed to me to accept the compromise s/he offered, so I did.Smeat75 (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please go back and look at the page on MOS again. I asked an experienced admin to evaluate the RfC, write a summary, and close it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Following Up on Chronology Comment on Elizabeth_Woodville\Elizabeth Woodville talk page
Instead of loading up the Elizabeth Woodville talk page with unrelated comments, I have a followup comment to your point about the uncertainty as to the coronation date of Louis I of Naples. The underlying source would not have used our modern calendar notation. Does the underlying source say: "vii. kal. jun." (26 May); "vi. kal. jun." (27 May); or "v. kal. jun." (28 May)? In the Middle Ages and even into the Renaissance, dates were expressed in classical Latin format, in which a date after the ides is expressed as so many days before the next calends. We frequently make mistakes in converting these dates, because Roman counting did not include a concept of zero, and the Romans did not count "from" a date but instead began counting "on" the date. Thus, 27 May is vi. kal. jun. (6 days before the calends of June) even though it is five days before the calends of June by our modern reckoning. We would normally count from 27 May by beginning with the next day (28 May) and keep going until June 1, but the Romans counted 27 May as the first day and kept going until 1 June. Similarly, Latin calendar terminology uses the term nones (Latin nonae, or ninth) for the eighth day before the ides. The classical Romans also had an eight-day week in which every eight day was referred to as the nundina (i.e., the "ninth" day). That sort of thing can produce errors in conversions of old dates to our modern notation, and it could simply be that "vi. kal. jun." was misread by one source as 26 May instead of 27 May. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC))
 * The problem is that 26 May is not mentioned by any of the sources I've encountered; they all give either 25 May or 27 May, without acknowledging the other date. They do, however, all say it was Pentecost, and there is no reason to doubt that the long-expected ceremony was performed on the closest possible "holy day" that followed papal recognition of Louis I as king. Surtsicna (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Catherine of Aragon
Catherine of Aragon's annulment was only recognised in England. In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church (and therefore most of Christendom), Catherine of Aragon remained married to Henry VIII until the day she died. Chchn (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth I was also not the rightful monarch of England in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, yet we don't make much of that - nor does the Roman Catholic point of view prevent us from describing Anne Boleyn as a queen. Obviously, the relevant law is the English law of the time. Surtsicna (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

To the attention of Your Royal Wikiness
Since you were one of the main participants in previous RfC's on the subject, perhaps you would be interested to know that I started here a thread whose aim is to throw ideas around about potential improvements on how we denote people with pretensions to royal and feudal titles. (Apologies for the title of this message! I can't help introducing a bit of levity to "serious" subjects.) -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Louis, Prince of Taranto
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Greetings, --Norden1990 (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I don't celebrate the former, though I do get to enjoy a day off :) Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too! Surtsicna (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Queen Silvia of Sweden
I respectfully disagree with your last edit on Queen Silvia. In my opinion, it's clear that Estelle is Victoria and Daniel's child as she is mentioned within Victoria's section. The bullet point was also spaced out to show that she was a granddaughter of Silvia. Other articles have similar formatting. PrincessAlice13 (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The 2007 photograph of the Queen nullified the identing, making Victoria, Estelle, Carl Philip and Madeleine appear at the same "level". Thus, it looked as if Estelle were her daughter. Surtsicna (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we're going to agree to disagree on this; as I can see where you're coming from, but in my eyes, the photo is above the mentioning of Silvia's children, so therefore, it should be clear that Estelle is Silvia's granddaughter as she is mentioned within Victoria's section (as I said previously). Also, the title of the section is "marriage", which would make Estelle's mentioning clear (I hope I've phrased this sentence clearly!) PrincessAlice13 (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the layout of the article is not the same for the two of us - due to different browsers of or screen dimensions. Can't Estelle be mentioned in line with Victoria's name? As in: "Victoria (b. 1977), who has a daughter named Estelle". Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You've raised a very good point which I didn't think of before - perhaps it is due to our different browsers or screen layouts. I will edit the section as you've said - what do you think of "Crown Princess Victoria, Duchess of Vastergotland; born in 1977. In 2010, she married Daniel Westling and they have a daughter, Princess Estelle, Duchess of Ostergotland, who was born in 2012?" PrincessAlice13  (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We could do with less detail. How about "Crown Princess Victoria... married to Daniel, mother of Princess Estelle"? The focus should be on Silvia and her marriage. Surtsicna (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now edited it to "Crown Princess Victoria (born in 1977). She is married to Daniel Westling and they have a daughter, Princess Estelle". Hopefully we can both agree on this edit. :) Also, I personally think that Victoria and her family are part of Silvia's marriage, so it's OK to mention them in the section.
 * P.S= Apologies about the delay in reply - was on a short holiday. PrincessAlice13 (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Bosnia
G'day, I noticed the FAC nomination of this article has not been completed. You will need to click on the "initiate this nomination" redlink on the talk page and follow the FAC nomination instructions, otherwise the nomination page will not initialise. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought there was something wrong. Thanks a lot for telling me! Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But, Peacemaker67, when I click on "initiate the nomination", a completely new archive opens up - archive3. The article has only been nominated once. How can I sort that out? Can I make archive3 a redirect to archive2? Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yikes, no idea what is going on there, but I reckon I know someone who might. could you have a look at this one please? Thanks mate, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 00:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what it it is either, I'm afraid. Things look okay as far as the latest nomination page (archive2) goes, and its transclusion at WP:FAC, it's just the furphy about needing to initiate the nom on the article talk page that's still an issue. I may have to ask around... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This sounds rather ominous. I wonder what is it that I did wrong. If there is anything I can do to fix it, please let me know. Surtsicna (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: John Allaire
Hello Surtsicna. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of John Allaire, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Władysław III of Poland
Hello! I would like to ask for your help, in connection with the origin of Władysław III of Poland (who also ruled Hungary between 1440 and 1444). Was he related to either predecessor Hungarian kings (Árpád dynasty, Anjou etc.)? Thanks in advance. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! I too wondered about that when I created the family tree of the kings of Hungary. He was not descended from the Angevins, and his closest Árpád ancestor was a High Middle Ages king, but I cannot remember which one. I will go through the ahnentafels once again and get back at you. Surtsicna (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, just like I thought - his closest Árpád ancestor was Constance, daughter of Béla IV. Béla IV was his great-great-great-great-grandfather. I hope that answers your question.

Béla IV of Hungary→Constance→Yuri I of Galicia→Anastasia→Uliana of Tver→Jogaila→Vladislaus I of Hungary Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just one more request: could you write me John Zápolya's ancestors? I know he was also a descendant of an Árpádian on the maternal branch. But which king? Thanks in advance. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Béla IV was the most recent Árpád ancestor of both Vladislaus I and John, and both were descended from him through Uliana of Tver. However, I am not absolutely certain that John's shortest link to Béla IV is through Uliana, although it is very likely. Through Uliana, he was Béla's great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson.

Uliana of Tver→Alexandra of Lithuania→Euphemia of Masovia→Przemyslaus II, Duke of Cieszyn→John ZápolyaSurtsicna (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! So all but one (Matthias I) king of Hungary descended from Álmos. :) Of course, if we disregard Gáspár Heltai's legend that John Hunyadi was Sigismund's illegitimate son. Thanks again for your help. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Channel Islands
Hi Surtsicna, congratulations on the upcoming Sark DYK; would you mind having a look at the portal I recently created? Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 16:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! The portal looks splendid. I can hardly believe it was created today! You might be interested in Template:Did you know nominations/Frederick Lukis, a triple Channel Islands hook. I am also planning on writing about Sark's La Seigneurie these days and nominating it for DYK. Thanks for your message. Surtsicna (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Created yesterday. I might review that DYK later (or one of them). Good luck with the article! Best, Mat  ty. 007 17:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Image placement
I am trying to add a number of new images to some biographies, but I'm working at an old computer with a small screen so I can't always tell where they end up in a layout. Would you please help by informing me of problems on the talk pages, or by moving the images, rather than removing too many of them? I'd certainly appreciate that. Any way that we can save time is always good. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. I have tried moving them, but all those articles had too many images and I was not sure whether new images were more valuable than the old. I would say that they possibly add more than pictures of statues and definitely more than fantasy portraits. On the other hand, portraits discussed by biographers (as in Elizabeth I of England) are probably more notable. Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

message
I don't know who you are or who that user is. and you cant make a new account when youre blocked. i think the ip gets blocked or something --B1189199429080823K (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sibyl Hathaway
The DYK project (nominate) 09:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What a sensational biography. Your authorial voice is so assured. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I am glad you enjoyed it. She was a sensational woman. Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now on the DYK on the Portal. Best, Mat  ty  .  007  20:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you and I were right
was blocked indef as a sock puppet. Give yourself a nice pat on the back. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 23:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks for letting me know. Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Marie Collings
Hi, I've just reviewed Marie Collings for DYK - it's all but a pass, except that the length is a fraction short of 5x expansion. If you can add another 20 - 30 to it (strictly needs 13) I'll give it the green tick. --Bcp67 (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right, I must have calculated it wrong. Thanks a lot for messaging me about it! Surtsicna (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Norberto Calao Catigbac
I did do a quick Google search on him before reverting, but all I saw were Wikipedia mirrors. If you found something in Google Books that indicates he got the award, can you add it as a reference? (I've unofficially been trying to keep unreferenced additions from cropping up in the Order of Isabella the Catholic article, because there were some totally false vanity entries in the article awhile back... and there is an invisible comment about "add a reference with your addition.")  I'm still not sure this is a good idea, as it's a redlink and the list is not exhaustive - there are all sorts of minor figures who've received the award in the past ~40 years who don't have WP articles and probably shouldn't be mentioned, either, and a "no redlinks" policy helps make that clear. But maybe this fellow deserves an article anyway. SnowFire (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not dig in much, but I managed to find these two websites: and . At first, he appeared more notable to me than he does now. I understand that you wish to keep the list concise. If he is indeed not notable enough for an article, removing him might be for the best after all. If he is, a red link is useful. I do not feel strongly about it either way. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Marie Collings
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Jadwiga of Poland
I wonder if at some point you'd be interested in working on this article? I'd be happy to help. I could obtain a scan of an entry from Polski Slownik Biograficzny and incorporate this into the article within the next few months (probably could do it as soon as March). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am actually surprised that the article about her is not a FA already, given her immense importance and popularity. In fact, I was so certain that someone would take on the article about her that I focused on the article about her elder sister instead. I found it quite difficult to work on the article about Mary because I cannot understand a word of Hungarian, and virtually all English-language sources that mention her do so in connection with her mother. I can manage through Polish if necessary, however, though I cannot profess to know enough about her life after her mother's death. Bottom line - yes, I would gladly take part in the project. It would probably be very useful to ask for help those who worked on the article about Jogaila; I assume many sources used in that article would be of much help. Surtsicna (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, Piotrus, did you make a typo here ("I am not supporting this"), or am I missing something? Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Typo fixed. I'll let you know when I gather sources for Jadwiga on my end. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Fugging DYK
Thank you for reviewing Fugging for DYK, however another editor for some unknown reason overrode you without giving a policy based reason at Template:Did you know nominations/Fugging. Could I ask if you could override him and put the green tick back please?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think he was trying to use Rules for Fools as if it were a policy or guideline when it isn't either of those.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The tick is already there. All I can do is try to discuss it. I truly do not see anything inappropriate about it. It is a plain fact. Surtsicna (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, personally I think he has misread that and he doesn't appear to have much DYK experience. I'm only asking for the tick to be re-added because it will appear that it's been overridden despite the reasoning being in error.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have inserted another one, but I believe it would be best to have another editor review it as well. There is more than enough time for another review, if necessary. Surtsicna (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that when it gets closer to april fools day, the admins start looking and if there is a problem, they'll see it. Thanks for doing that.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

James and Louise
Why you say that they're not treated as royals? Because they don't have the HRH style? Keivan.f Talk 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. The whole point of going against George V's Letters Patent was to treat them as children of an earl rather than as royal children. Surtsicna (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think only a press release isn't enough to say that they're not royals. Under George V's Letters Patent (still remaining in force today) they are prince and princess of the United Kingdom with HRH style, aren't they? Keivan.f  Talk 19:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They might be but the parents' decision, blessed by the Queen, should probably be respected. Besides, the template says that only those styled as Majesty or Royal Highness should be included. James and Louise might be entitled to the style of Royal Highness, but they are certainly not styled as such. Surtsicna (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, so it's their parents decision. But will they get the style of HRH when their father becomes Duke of Edinburgh? I think it may happen. What's your idea about this? Keivan.f  Talk 17 January 2014
 * I suppose they will be able to style themselves as Royal Highnesses when they reach the age of majority, but perhaps by that time (and certainly by the time their father is Duke of Edinburgh), their uncle Charles will be king. Charles has already hinted that he wishes to downsize the royal family, and creating more Royal Highnesses is not the way to accomplish that. Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If they reach the age of majority, they can decide lonlely to use HRH or not, can't they? I mean are Charles's or their parent's decions important even when they reach the age of majority? Keivan.f  Talk 21 January 2014
 * I do not know much about how The Firm functions. Charles might as well issue new letters patent. Surtsicna (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Empress Michiko
Hi! Can you make a cropped image of Empress Michiko from this file? I think a newer picture should be used in the article. Keivan.f Talk 19:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Keivan! I don't think a nice crop can be made, since her hand is almost blocking her face. A new infobox image for the article about the Emperor is a possibility, however. Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's already a cropped image of the Emperor from this file. And I know, Michiko's hand is blocking her face (a little), but I asked you to make a cropped image of her and then we could decide to use it or not. But I think we'll have a good image from her if you do it of course. Keivan.f  Talk 12:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You said her hand is almost blocking her face. But I think it will be better than the picture that is currently used as her info picture. Keivan.f  Talk 18:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:TALK
...
 * Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.
 * Do not be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

replacing redirects
Please create disambiguation pages first, that way there won't be any impression that you're replacing redirects arbitrarily. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. You might want to check whether your impression is based on fact before jumping to revert. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Thomas of Bosnia
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=592232435 your edit] to Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Tomašević}}/Стјепан Томашевић, Stefan Tomašević/Стефан Томашевић; died on 25 May 1463 was the last sovereign from the House of Kotromanić. He reigned as King of Bosnia from

DYK for Tvrtko II of Bosnia
Materialscientist (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sark
Hi Surtsicna, have you seen the BBC programme about Sark? While I'm here, how much work do you think the article needs for GA status? Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 21:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! I am not in the UK, so unfortunately I cannot watch it. I suspect it will be uploaded on YouTube sooner or later, though. Which article did you have on mind? Surtsicna (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sark, though you can take your pick on any if you want. Shame about the iPlayer programme, I suspect I can find a few nuggets in it at some point. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  18:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I believe the article about Sark would require quite a lot of work. See WP:Good article criteria. I am currently involved in other projects, but I would be happy to help you out if you need something. Surtsicna (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just looking for somewhere to try to get to GA status after Herm. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  21:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding immodest, I believe the article about Sibyl Hathaway is not far from GA status. It would need a peer review, a slightly more sophisticated referencing system and perhaps some attention from a copy-editor. As I said, I would love to give you a hand if you are interested in it. Surtsicna (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. It didn't sound immmodest, merely truthful. I'm afraid I can only access the online refs. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  11:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Surtsi,

Just interested on which country's royal articles do you work on mostly? Jaqeli (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! I am not sure I could single out one country, but they are almost exclusively European. Surtsicna (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Frederick Lukis
Hello! Your submission of Frederick Lukis 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! TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Bosnia 2
I believe Ian archived this because he was looking for some response from you to Hchc's comments (even though Hchc said "more to come"). If you put this back up at FAC in two weeks, I'll be happy to review the prose. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And I was looking for more comments from Hchc2009's before I became too busy to even turn my laptop on. Oh well, Ian Rose was patient enough to let it sit there for a month, so I don't blame him. Would you mind reviewing the prose before I try renominating it for the final time? That would allow me to fix anything you might find objectionable and save me some time. Regards, Surtsicna (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. Ping me in two weeks or later when you're ready to renominate it and I'll go through it then. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia
Hello! Your submission of Stephen Tomašević 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! Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for taking care of the source. Regarding the name, all of us who work on ethnic subjects would love to do away with WP:SURNAME, but that's just the rule. Thus, we have King Christian IX of Denmark being referred to as "Christian" from the second mention on, King Charles I of England being referred to as "Charles" from the second mention on, etc. Perhaps you would like to refer to him as "Stephen" on the subsequent mentions? (Also, you will see that king is not capitalized, unless it's in a phrase like "King of Scotland".) Best, Yoninah (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but the fact is that historians always refer to him as Stephen Tomašević. That is his most common name. In fact, that is his name. We would not refer to John Paul II as "John", would we? I believe we should use the name historians use - no more, no less. As for the capitalization, I was recently reprimanded, so to say, for not capitalizing the word "queen". The criticism made sense; see featured articles such as Elizabeth II, Mary, Queen of Scots, Pedro II of Brazil, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a light bulb just turned on when you mentioned John Paul. I didn't realize that Tomašević was his "middle name" – it's from Thomas, right? OK, I accept your point. Regarding the capitalization of Queen, I'm sure those are just loyal Brits who put it in. I'll leave that, too ... until some other editor comes along :). Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess you could call it a middle name, as the closest thing to a surname would be Kotromanić. Loyal Brits or someone else entirely, the capitalization rules are part of WP:JOBTITLES: "Offices, titles, and positions ... are capitalized only in the following cases: ... when a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g. the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II..." I get them wrong often, as you could see from the FAC archive. Regards :) Surtsicna (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia
The DYK project (nominate) 14:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on over 13,900 hits! I knew the hook was a winner when I saw it! Best, Yoninah (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 1100 more would have been nice, but I suppose I should not be greedy :D Surtsicna (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Frederick Lukis
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Louisa Collings
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for William Thomas Collings
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Relationship between Queen Victoria of Great Britain and Carl, 3rd Prince of Leiningen
I note your revert of my reference to Queen Victoria and Prince Carl being step siblings. After reading the definition of step sibling in the link you provided, I agree that my referring to them as step-siblings was incorrect. However, it would be correct to refer to them as half siblings as while they shared the same mother, they did have different fathers. This then connects to the point I was trying to make in my comment on my edit that because Queen Victoria was the daughter of a son of George III, she was in line to the British throne, while Prince Carl had no direct connection despite being a half brother of Queen Victoria. So, would you be agreeable for me to change the current reference to their relationship being brother/sister (which implies that they were full siblings), to a reference that their relationship was as half siblings? --Chewings72 (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. That would be more precise. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. --Chewings72 (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Help
Hi! How can I upload a better version of a file? For example there's a picture in Commons that I have a better version of it. But how can I do this? Keivan.f Talk 18:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you simply upload a new file. That is probably the easiest way to do it. Anything else would require reading up on the Commons rules. Surtsicna (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I only know how to Upload files on English Wiki, I mean uploading a file on each wiki. How can I upload a file on commons? Keivan.f  Talk 10:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you tried this? Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Shellwood
Hi, just curious if you were familiar with ? I've had it on my userpage for several years now. Nyttend (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha! Thanks for decoration ideas! I did see it somewhere (perhaps even on your userpage!) long time ago, but it would not have crossed my mind if you had not reminded me. Things like these, even if considered mere vandalism, tend to be distractive. I believe that edit summary (disregarding this one) earned her or him a much, much longer time out. Surtsicna (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sibyl Hathaway
I have nominated her for GA, I haven't done any work on the article, but I think that the article is likely good enough to pass with not too much work. I just thought you may want a heads up. Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 19:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, but I think some copy-editing might have been in order. It also seems that some references lack page numbers. I'll have to get to it these days. I would appreciate some help with copy-editing, as I am not a native speaker :) Surtsicna (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have known, the article is so flowing. I presume you use British English? I will have a look at the article, probably at the weekend. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  20:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to, but I obviously cannot grasp all the differences. The article should probably use British English anyway, due to WP:ENGVAR. Regards, Surtsicna (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the line "who could neither shoot nor climb cliffs and whom her father thus considered a "weakling""! Mat  ty  .  007  15:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That one made me chuckle too! I think I may have used it in the DYK about her father. Surtsicna (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It does sound familiar now you mention it. I have given the article a bit of a copy edit, but I'll try and fix any issues arising from a GA review. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  16:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is now a GAR being initiated. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  20:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work and for notifying me! I somehow missed it while scrolling down my watchlist. Let's cross our fingers :) Surtsicna (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Dinah Ashley-Cooper, Countess of Shaftesbury for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dinah Ashley-Cooper, Countess of Shaftesbury is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dinah Ashley-Cooper, Countess of Shaftesbury until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Catalan culture Challenge
Hello! I've seen that you are one of the main editors of the Violant of Hungary article and I just want to inform you that the article is featured at the the Catalan Culture Challenge, a Wikipedia editing contest in which victory will go to those who start and improve the greatest number of articles about 50 key figures of Catalan culture. It goes from March 16 to April 15. You can take part by creating or expanding articles on these people in your native language (or any other one you speak). It would be lovely to have you on board. :-) Amical Wikimedia --Kippelboy (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Harald V of Norway
As I explained in the edit summary, I removed the wikilink to "Harald V Land" because no such page exists, hence, the redlink. Moreover, it's unlikely that a standalone page on "Harald V Land" will ever exist, as it is not notable enough on its own. Cheers, JCO312 (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that red links should be removed simply because they are red. See WP:Red links. They serve to encourage people to write articles, i.e. to make them blue. Geographic features are generally notable, and GEOLAND does not suggest that this one would be an exception. Surtsicna (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree entirely. This does not fit within any of four criteria for geographic regions areas or places (Populated, legally-recognized places, Populated places without legal recognition, Disputed regions, Named natural features).  Moreover, this would seem to fit within inherited notability, which states "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events."  There is a random area of land named after an individual.  It's not independantly a notable geographic area.  Put it another way, it didn't merit a page prior to being named after the King, so the mere fact that it is named after him doesn't make it notable now.  Cheers, JCO312 (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)