User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 7

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request
Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Canvassing, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Maria Alexandrovna (Marie of Hesse)
Hi. I'm sorry. I did not realize that the Maria Alexandrovna (Marie of Hesse) page, which I had previously moved to a different name, would be "controversial". I should have initiated a talk page discussion, but I didn't realize it was that big of a deal. I apologize. Quis separabit? 00:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, you really should not apologize. I mean, I am not offended :D The naming of articles about Russian empresses has been throughly discussed years ago, and it appears that the "Russian name (Original name)" is the accepted format (see Category:Russian tsarinas). Surtsicna (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had been working on British royalty, which is much simpler (for me, anyway), and then found myself in Russian territory (due to intermarriage, etc) and waded in too deep. Quis separabit?  12:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with enlarging it slightly
I see nothing wrong with it. I agree that the image is not the best but as it has been agreed a while back, it's much more presentable than the previous one because she's smiling in it. No need to argue over this, newer pics will come and it will be replaced as always. (Monkelese (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I frequently stroll around FlickR looking for high-quality images of various stuff, but until a good one pops up, I don't think we should make the present one look any worse than it already is. Enlarging an image of poor resolution is never a good idea. It's even worse in infoboxes, as it usually makes them look heavy and unwieldy. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Surtsicna, What do you think about this image? I just got it from flickr, I think it's a good headshot and presentable (Monkelese (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC))
 * I did notice when I was cropping it that it's hardly her best side. In the present one, she's actually smiling, and though she has the Prince (?) behind her, it's quite a good shot. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  19:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea, I decided to trim it a bit after you did it, it looks good now. (Monkelese (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC))
 * I still think it's a bit blurry, and hardly very flattering. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  19:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea, I noticed after the crop, she looks blurry too. When she was standing next to the prince, she looked better because he was very blurry. (Monkelese (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC))
 * Are we sure that the uploader took the picture? To me, it looks like it was part of TV footage. The fact that the uploader has no related images makes it even less likely that he is the author. Surtsicna (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I got the image from flickr, it looked good there, but when I uploaded it on wiki, it actually doesn't look so good.. (Monkelese (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.
You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on April 16, 2014. Please send me an email at jmatthews@wikimedia.org if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  noble ladies

Thank you for quality articles on people of European nobility, especially women such as Beatrice of Falkenburg, articles of the topic, removing trivia, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 464h recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember that fondly. It encourages me to continue my clean-up mission. Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Roxelana
Hi! Please join the discussion that we have on the Roxelana's talk page for moving the title. I'll be happy to know your idea too. Keivan.f Talk 15:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandal
I have blocked the IP address that you reported at Administrator intervention against vandalism for arbitrarily reverting your edits. It is a university IP address, and it is entirely likely that the editor will return using another IP address from the university's pool. If so, please let me know, and I will consider whether to place a range block. There are many good edits from the university, so any range block would have to be of limited duration, but sometimes even a short range block serves to convey the message, and the disruption stops. The IP address used in the other edits you linked to has not edited for a week, so I am taking no action there. However, please do feel welcome to let me know of any other IP addresses used by the vandal, because the more I know about which IP addresses have been used, the more able I am to make useful decisions about possible range blocks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! The vandal will be back, that's certain, but clearly well-meaning users from the university should not be prevented from contributing because of her or him. I suppose I should arm myself with patience. Have you seen these IP addresses? Surtsicna (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to bother you, JamesBWatson, but this user shows no intention to discuss anything, let alone quit edit warring. Even if this were a content dispute, I would say that she or he crossed the line a while ago; but it is not. Her or his arguments do not apply to the other article, where she or he has not given any reason for reverting, and definitely have nothing to do with random articles where she or he reverted my edits without explanation. This person knows her or his way around Wikipedia enough to track my contributions, which makes me think that we are dealing either with a troll or a sockpuppet of an established user. Is there a solution to this nagging problem? Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, having had another look at this, I think it looks much less clear-cut than I thought at first. You talk about "random articles where she or he reverted [your] edits without explanation", but as far as I can see it is restricted to Sarajevo International Airport and Mostar International Airport, together with just a couple of edits to Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia, while numerous other articles that you have edited have, as far as I can see, been unaffected. If I have missed some other articles, please let me know, but what I can see does not look like following you around and randomly reverting your edits. Nor is it obvious that the edits are vandalism: it looks as though they may well be made in good faith, whether rightly or wrongly. On the other hand, the editor seems to have used only a limited number of IP addresses, recently using a small IPv6 range, so that blocking his/her editing may not be quite as difficult as I thought, if it becomes necessary. I am not dismissing your concerns, but I am saying that it looks less like harassment than I first thought. Please do let me know if you have any other relevant information that might clarify the matter one way or the other. For example, if you can point to other articles that are affected, that may make a big difference. I have given the anonymous editor a warning about edit warring on the talk page of the latest IP address that he/she has used. Of course, it is very likely that he or she will come back on another IP address, and never see the warning, but that is something that has to be accepted: I am willing to treat him/her as though he/she has been warned, and block if the edit warring continues. Please bear in mind, though, that you too have been edit warring, and are likely to be blocked if you continue. Remember that it is no defence against a charge of edit warring to say "but my edits were right, and the other edit-warrior's edits were wrong". Also, don't make the mistake that for some reason many editors do of thinking that it is OK to edit war as long as you don't break the so-called "three revert rule". If you are in any doubt about what the edit warring policy says, you may like to have a look at it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ping* Thanks for replying so quickly. She or he also reverted a random edit at Pavle Radenović, and she or he was probably the one who reverted my edits at Anna of Russia without any explanation (as the reverts took place the same time she or he reverted at the "main" articles). As I said, she or he offers some explanation at the Mostar International Airport article, but none at the Sarajevo International Airport. I am aware of the edit warring policy, which is why I started a talk page discussion a while ago and urged the editor to join it, but that was never likely to happen. Would it be possible to protect the article so that only registered users could edit it? Surtsicna (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I didn't think of this before, but the editor has been evading the block that I mentioned at the beginning of this section, so I have blocked the IP range that he/she has recently been using, for block evasion. Recent editing has been from a fairly narrow range of IPv6 addresses, and I have no problem with blocking that range. Earlier edits used three IPv4 addresses, two of which are from Boston University, but he/she has not responded to the block on one of them by simply jumping to other Boston University IPs, as I thought might happen, so it may be that he/she has access only to a limited selection of the university's IP addresses, in which case blocking them will be more effective than I thought.


 * I don't know why I didn't notice the edit to Pavle Radenović. That does make it look a little more like stalking your edits, though one edit more than two weeks ago doesn't make a lot of difference. I did notice the edits to Anna of Russia, but it seems unlikely that was the same person, as the IP address used geolocates to Brazil, whereas other IP addresses used are from Massachusetts, and I can find no evidence to suggest that it is a proxy IP.


 * I do see that you posted to Talk:Mostar International Airport but got no response from the anonymous editor, and also that this edit summary suggests that the anonymous editor has no wish to collaborate. Nevertheless, what I see is substantially edit warring, with a few details making me more sympathetic to you than to the other editor, but the biggest feature still being the edit war which both of you are engaging in. I also see that you have made another revert since I posted here about edit warring. Because you are evidently acting in good faith, while the other editor is behaving in a more questionable way, I am not blocking you for edit warring, but you would have had no grounds for complaint if I had done so following that last edit, and you really should expect to be blocked if you continue.


 * The answer to your question about protecting the article is that it would be possible, but if the editor is stalking your edits, protecting an article is unlikely to be helpful, as he/she would probably just move on to another article you have edited. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks a lot for helping out. Now Brazil, you say? That makes me think of Guilherme Styles, an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer who "specialized" in exactly those kinds of edits - royal styles. He is thought to have used "random IPs from northwest Mexico", but his name is much more suited to a Brazilian than to a Mexican person (Portuguese Guilherme rather than Castilian Guillermo). But if that's the case, he will be blocked again sooner or later. Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is really interesting. After spending a huge amount of time looking into editing histories, I have found the following.


 * The IP range 191.220.0.0/16 has made a total of 124 edits, using 21 IP addresses. (I don't know whether you know how IP ranges work, but in case you don't, that means all IP addresses of the form 191.220.x.y.) Every one of those edits has been on royal family related articles. The general style and nature of the edits has been very much the same as editing by Guilherme Styles, including obsession with honorific titles. There are also numerous other points, no one of them big enough to prove anything, but each of them adding a little more to the impression of similarity.
 * Both Guilherme Styles and the IP editor show an interest in editing templates, unlike the vast majority of editors, who never touch them. Examples for the IP editor:   . Examples for GS:    . There are many more.
 * Both have reverted your edits a fair number of times. Examples for the IP , and  substantially reverted at . Examples for GS:.
 * Both have a tendency to make typos where the key adjacent to the one intended is used: . Obviously this is no proof of anything in itself, as this is a fairly common mistake, but a lot of small coincidences like this add up to something bigger.
 * The IP editor has frequently made efforts to save articles created by GS which have been converted to redirects, sometimes edit warring to do so. Example 1:  . Example 2:  . Example 3:  . Example 4:.
 * GS edit warring: [ [; the IP editor picking up the same edit war:.
 * As far as I am concerned, the sum of the evidence I have seen would be enough for me to place a range block immediately, were it not for the Mexican edits. The Mexican and Brazilian edits could be the same person, using some sort of web host or proxy or something, but I can't find any evidence for that. Alternatively, it could be the same person who travels between the two countries. Or one of the two could be Guilherme Styles, and the other a false positive. Since you evidently have far more experience of these editors than I have, perhaps you can help me decide. How strong do you think the evidence is that the Mexican editor (187.250.55.141, 187.250.100.17, 187.250.83.248, 187.250.115.72) is Guilherme Styles? (Incidentally, the Mexican IPs, unlike the Brazilian ones, are not suitable for a range block, as there are large numbers of completely unrelated edits, apparently by other editors.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I hadn't associated Guilherme Styles with the anonymous edit warrior until you pointed out that the user who reverted my edits at Anna of Russia was from Brazil rather than Massachusetts; in fact, I assumed (s)he and the Massachusetts user were the same person. It now seems fairly obvious that Guilherme Styles is the Brazilian editor. That conclusion is strongly supported by your detailed analysis (and I fancied myself a detective!) and also by the stated fact that his name is a typical Brazilian name, one that would hardly ever be encountered in Mexico. If it were the other way around (Guilherme Styles being blocked as a Brazilian sockpuppeteer and this IP being from Mexico), there would be some doubt. In this case, I think the evidence is more than strong enough. Surtsicna (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I think. I shall go ahead with the range block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if you see any more block evasion, please let me know as soon as you see it. The shorter the time lag between block evasion and being blocked again, the more likely it is that the editor will eventually be deterred. Editors who find they can get away with block evasion for quite a while before being blocked often just accept occasional blocks as a price worth paying. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is why I am certain that the user is trolling or simply vandalizing. She or he now reverts every single edit I made to the article, and is obviously skilled enough to know how to do it. This includes grammar corrections, style improvements, wikilink additions, all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the supposed issue.  I am completely lost over here, JamesBWatson. Surtsicna (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I have put a range block covering 128.197.42.73 and 128.197.42.33 for a month, and I have semi-protected Mostar International Airport and Sarajevo International Airport for three months. I can put a wider range block if he/she turns up on other IP addresses a little out of the range I have blocked, but I prefer to block a minimal range, to minimise collateral damage to other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject invite
Mat ty. 007 07:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Glagolitic
Wikipedia says: "In Dalmatia, Croatia the liturgy was celebrated in Church Slavonic, and authorisation for use of this language was extended to some other Slavic regions between 1886 and 1935." Do you find anything wrong with that? In addition, Wikipedia quotes the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It adds " [sic]" to the mention of "Glagolitic language", which I presume you know means that Wikipedia is indicating that the text it is quoting contains a mistake; but it does not falsify the quotation. Neither should you. The Catholic Encyclopedia did not say what you are attributing to it. (Besides, Church Slavonic was by then a dead language, not the "native language" of the people in the area.) So please undo your mistake. Esoglou (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologize. I did not see the quotation marks. That should teach me not to read articles in the edit mode again. Your proposal makes perfect sense. Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your graciousness, which I appreciate and praise. I hope you don't mind if I undo the change myself.  Esoglou (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not. I thought you had already done so. Surtsicna (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Good day, Surtsicna! You thanked me on my editing of Eleanor of Castile, but I did not do anything special. Now, I must say thanks to you: you cleaned Henry, son of Edward I. I uploaded the new version of his depiction, do you think is good? — Lord
 * Hi! Yes, it looks better. Doing little things can accomplish a lot :) Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Didn't I? Thanks :) Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=610163033 your edit] to Anne of Gloucester 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * | father = [Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester]

Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Palaiologos Tagaris
Please see note on your DYK review. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for James of Aragon (monk)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pope Leo I#Papal article consistency
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pope Leo I. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings
I see you removed vandalism on article Bosnian language by User:No such user, and thank you for that. This user should be checked by admins, he has some nationalistic behaviour. I count that you will help me. Thanks again. --Lumi (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. I am afraid I cannot be of much help, however, as I have not had other experience with her or him. Surtsicna (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 1321 leper scare
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Spanish monarchs
I can't help anymore at the Spanish monarchy related articles, as I'm on probation 'til May 2015. Just wanted to wish ya good luck, in keeping things accurate. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wonder if people who write that he ascended on 19 June are really unaware that it's still 18 June. Surtsicna (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do believe, John Charles I was deposed by Wikipedia, a few hours before his abdication :) GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Empress Matilda
This is a note to let the main editors of Empress Matilda know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 2, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/July 2, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Empress Matilda (1102–1167) was the claimant to the English throne during the civil war known as the Anarchy. The daughter of King Henry I of England, she moved to Germany to marry the future Holy Roman Emperor Henry V. Her younger brother, William Adelin, died in 1120, leaving a succession crisis, and on Henry V's death in 1125, her father arranged for her to marry Geoffrey of Anjou in a strategic alliance. Henry I nominated Matilda as his heir before his death in 1135, but Matilda and Geoffrey faced opposition from the Norman barons and the throne was instead taken by her cousin Stephen of Blois. In 1139 Matilda crossed to England to take the kingdom by force. She captured Stephen at the Battle of Lincoln in 1141, but London crowds blocked her attempt to be crowned and she was never formally declared Queen of England. Robert of Gloucester, her half-brother, was captured, and Matilda exchanged him for Stephen. A stalemate developed. Matilda returned to Normandy in 1148, leaving her eldest son (later Henry II) to continue the campaign. Thereafter she focused on the administration of Normandy, provided her son with political advice, and worked extensively with the Church.

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Spanish Royal Family
I'm not sure your last edit to the Spanish Royal Family, in that it now has the current King's sisters and their families listed. The lede has a referenced source that only the King, his spouse, his children and his parents are in the "Royal Family," which would leave the sisters and their families in the extended family section. What do you think? JCO312 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. "The King of Spain, the monarch's spouse, the monarch's parents and their children, and the heir to the Spanish throne." If the royal family includes Felipe's parents and their children, that would mean that Elena and Cristina are still members of the royal family, no? Now, this is obviously a mistranslation, but I am not sure that the reference says anything about who comprises the royal family anyway.

"En el Registro Civil de la Familia Real se inscribirán los nacimientos, matrimonios y defunciones, así como cualquier otro hecho o acto inscribible con arreglo a la legislación sobre Registro Civil, que afecten al Rey de España, su Augusta Consorte, sus ascendentes de primer grado, sus descendientes y al Príncipe heredero de la Corona."

Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. I stepped in because I saw a user revert his edits saying there was no "evidence" for it, despite there clearly being a reference in the article itself. For what it's worth, the article consists of a single paragraph, and reading it would have taken less time than reverting the edit. Surtsicna (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Uroševac
Hello.

Per BRD you should discuss your edit (diff) when reverted, not edit war. Please revert yourself.

Don't confuse English langauge title and alternative name with local official language translations. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! Per common sense you should provide a reason for reverting an edit rather than merely require me to ask for a blessing at the talk page. I don't think there is anything to confuse. The article title is the subject of the lead sentence, followed immediately by the other name. See Luxembourg (Belgium), where "Luxembourg" is not repeated as the official French name; same with Namur, Liège, and others. Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternative English language name ≠ name translation. There are two English language names for this place. Ferizaj and Uroševac. With your edit you deleted alternative name. The only alternative name. That is exactly what I wrote in my edit (undo per BRD - Don't delete only alternative name. Please respect BRD and revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How exactly is the example of Ferizaj different from the examples I gave? Surtsicna (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Typo in category link
Hello — I noticed that one of your talk page archives ended up in a mainspace article category. The note titled Maria Alexandrovna (Marie of Hesse) unintentionally puts User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 7 into Category:Russian tsarinas. Shall I make the one-character fix? I didn't want to edit your page, especially an archive, without asking first. { Unician &nabla; 23:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'll do it now that you told me about it, but you should have been bold :) I would have had no reason (nor right) to object. Anyway, thanks for letting me know! Surtsicna (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverting
You should ease off on the reverting. I generally restrict myself to 2 or less within a 24hr period, per article :) GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A wise strategy, given that your long block was only recently lifted. I am not aware of breaking the 3RR recently, however. Thanks for advice anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Language spoken by Tesla
Can you please direct me to the discussion you were referencing, so I do not open the new one. I do not see how Tesla could have spoken Serbo-Croatian language since that term was introduces in Yugoslavia, years after Tesla became American citizen. I apologize for reverting you, however your explanation was far from adequate. Asdisis (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, my edit summary was inappropriate and I apologize for it. Apparently, the consensus of scholars is that the language spoken by Bosnians, Croats, Montenegrins and Serbs should be called Serbo-Croatian. The name "Serbo-Croatian" dates from 1824 (Jacob Grimm is to be thanked for it), not from the Yugoslav period. That is irrelevant anyway, since a medieval countryman of Tesla's would also be said to have spoken Serbo-Croatian. Surtsicna (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That's the point. My premise was just the opposite, that Tesla's countryman of that time would not state his language as Serbo-Croatian. I must admit that I haven't known that the term "Serbo-Croatian" language had been introduces in 19th century. However, I think that this introduction was not generally accepted. I quote: "Unofficially, Serbs and Croats typically called the language "Serbian" or "Croatian", respectively, without implying a distinction between the two". The quote and the referenced sources are provided Here. You probably know that changes in linguistics are one of the hardest to introduce to general public. Thus I think that Tesla's countryman would not say he speaks "Serbo-Croatian". He would simply say Croatian or Serbian, depending of nationality. I think it would be advisable to make my suggested edit. Asdisis (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't matter what term the person used. We say "Spanish" even though its speaker call[ed] it castellano (Castilian), or "Old English" even though Anglo-Saxons certainly didn't call it that. We use the term used by scholars. There is no "linguistic change" here; it's simply the matter of name. Surtsicna (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But I don't think that the scholars use that term. Certainly not today, and I do not think they used it back then, except for few of them. Asdisis (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that they do indeed use it today. Whether they used it back then is irrelevant; as I said, the Anglo-Saxons did not call their language "Old English". If you believe that the term is not used today, please post at Talk:Serbo-Croatian language. Surtsicna (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As I know it, it is not used in Croatia nor Serbia. However I know that the therm Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian (BCS) is used today outside in EU administration. Serbo-Croatian is not used. I do not think that the term used today should be used in the article. Maybe I will post as you suggested, however Tesla's native language should be resolved. Asdisis (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is English spoken in Croatia or Serbia? This Wikipedia is in English, and thus uses names used in English. They don't use the terms "Croatia" and "Serbia" in those countries either - so what? "Serbo-Croatian" is supposedly used by English-speaking scholars. If you have evidence that the term "Serbo-Croatian" is not favored by anglophone academics, please present it at the said talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And what is your remark regarding Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian (BCS), which is extensively used today? Asdisis (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We should probably use whichever term is most common. Surtsicna (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be BCS. I think that this term is most common today, since its extensively used in EU administration. Asdisis (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, since EU administration is not composed of English-speaking authorities on linguistics. Surtsicna (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? I hard BCS used many times, while Serbo-Croatian not a single time since the breakup of Yugoslavia. Well, not to go too deep...So the language spoken by Tesla should be stated by its present name? Is that your opinion or that is the practice on Wikipedia? I'm not too familiar. Asdisis (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I, on the other hand, constantly hear about "Serbo-Croatian" and never about "Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian"! And get this: I hear about "Bosnian" even more often! That, of course, is irrelevant. The practice on Wikipedia is to use English, i.e. use whichever name is used in relevant, authoritative and respectable English language sources. The consensus appears to be that "Serbo-Croatian" is such a name. If you disagree with the consensus, you are welcome to dispute it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. Best regards. Asdisis (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject
Hi Surtsicna, would you be willing to sign up to Wp:WikiProject Channel Islands? Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 11:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! I have never really signed up to a WikiProject. I prefer "freelancing" :D I will hop around though! Surtsicna (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Retitling of German nobles
I see you've reverted a large number of my moves without even bothering to notify me. I raised this question several days ago here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography and received no objections. How about you discuss it with me before mass reverting? Colonies Chris (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! I reacted to your moves much the same way - you hadn't notified anyone who regularly edits articles related to royalty and nobility. Surely Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility would have been better, more sensible venues to discuss this matter. It is hardly surprising that you received neither support nor opposition at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Biography, as few people there are interested in the issue. In fact, how many actual discussions do you see there? Surtsicna (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hanover Princes
Hi. I notice you've gone through and reverted a number of my edits, noting that all the titles used by the Hanoverian princes are in pretense. The difference between the English and Hanover royal family is that the Hanover throne was discontinued, so all descendants are the primary "pretenders". In the case of England, the royal family is extant, there are current princes, it's just the Hanoverians aren't amongst them. It's not correct to describe them as princes of England. Metebelis (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But it's no less correct than to describe them as princes of Hanover. They claim all those titles and are equally entitled to all of them. I know that some would argue that they are British princes more than they are Hanoverian princes, since a) the state of Hanover no longer exists, b) the UK not only exists, but exists as a monarchy whereas Germay is a republic, and they are members of its previous ruling dynasty. Their claim to these titles should, of course, be explained in each article. Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok (though I'd say equally not-entitled), I'll update the articles to explain the status of the claims. I'll clarify the difference between those who did have the titles (pre-1917) and lost them, and those who never were entitled to them. Metebelis (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Zdravo ga i Tebi
Većinu "voleja" sam smjestuo u pravi ugao. A kada si već tako benevolentan - zašto ne priskoćiš u pomoć? Inače, na en.wiki sam dovršio ciklus priloga o svom zavičaju, pa ko pomogne - pomogne! Sada nije do mene. Znam odgovor na pitanje (sebi): šta si ti uradio da ne bude tako. Sve o čemu pišem dobro poznajem (inače to i ne bih radio), a i ovih dana sam provjerio "na terenu"! Sve je na broju i u stanju o kojem govorim!

Stojte mi zdravo i veselo (ako pomognete: još zdravije i veselije!!!), With best regards,

Yahadzija (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Rüling at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Help for a non-English user trying to write English articles.
has been writing articles that are essentially non-coherent. Vrbanjci and Čudnić are the latest two. They are currently asking everywhere why I removed 20 references that sourced one sentence... I think. I haven't an idea what their user page is supposed to mean. Could you help out? Bgwhite (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How exactly can I help? Frankly, that whole thing is too bizarre for me to know what to do. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was guessing they were Bosnian. I saw your name on WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina and that you understood Cyrillic (via your userpage). I was hoping you or somebody you knew could talk to them in their native language.  About 1/2 of their articles have been deleted outright.  The rest have various problems, depending on how other people jumped in and edited them.  I guess best case scenario is somebody can guide them to be productive in fixing articles.  Worst case is to say their native language Wikipedia would be better for them to edit.  Bgwhite (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I see. Pardon me, it should have been obvious! I didn't know my name was on WP Bosnia and Herzegovina. Is it on the talk page or on a list of members? I don't recall joining. Anyway, I'll leave her or him a message, but I somehow doubt it will have much effect - probably because I've been dealing with a similarly incomprehensible user for half a year, who flatly refuses to respond. Surtsicna (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your name was on the talk page. There wasn't much on the talk page, but there was a big discussion on Latin vs Cyrillic in Bosnia.  You sounded the most sane and level-headed person, so you are the Chosen One.  Sitush has also stepped in to help.  He regularly deals with the is problem in India related articles.  Looks like the same person has been doing articles on the Hungarian Wikipedia too, with the same outcome.  Bgwhite (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This person's first language is not Bosnian. The message she or he left below was almost certainly translated using Google Translate or another online translator. Surtsicna (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Anna Rüling
Hello! Your submission of Anna Rüling 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! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Co-Princes of Andorra
Hello, Surtsicna. I'm looking for help editing the infobox of the co-princes article, which has two issues. It's grammatically garbled (two people can't be "His . . . Highness", they would have to be "Their . . . Highnesses", and it's highly doubtful that Serene Highness is even the accepted form of address for the co-princes. I've already raised the issue on the talk page, and have now reached the point where I want to boldly remove that caption completely, but find that I am unable to. Too much is filled in automatically from somewhere I can't get my delete finger on it. I'm approaching you because you've already raised the issue, and in the hopes that you're more tech savvy than I am and can either tell me how to do it, or do it yourself. Hope it's not a bother! Awien (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. In my humble opinion, if an infobox cannot be accurate, it should be removed altogether. It is certainly not worth presenting incorrect information. I'll see if I can make it work, though. Surtsicna (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks! Awien (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Great edit summary too! Awien (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, you are welcome and thanks! I was trying not to hurt the infobox's feelings. Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Flickr
Hi. I saw that you uploaded an image of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall from Flickr. Can't you find a free image of Diana, Princess of Wales on Flickr? So we can have a better image than the current one. Keivan.f Talk 19:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm afraid that's unlikely. The relevant difference between Camilla and Diana is that the latter died 17 years ago, 7 years ago before Flickr. Surtsicna (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot to note that there are dozens of free images of wax sculptures of Diana. I doubt those would be suitable for the infobox, though :D Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirects
I suspect you'll want to know about this: Wikipedia talk:Redirect. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Anna Rüling
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales didn't like your edit
Jimbo asked today that your edit be removed from Wikipedia. I hope that you are not too stricken with pain and humiliation. Personally, I thought it was a nice photo. - 2001:558:1400:10:DCF3:DCB5:E92C:6A45 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am actually considering leaving Wikipedia because of his insolence. Thank you comforting me! Surtsicna (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Does this make sense?
On Edward Ward, 9th Baron Dudley's page, it says he was born posthumously.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Also my edit to Heir presumptive was reverted. Do you think it was justified?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your edit was fine. I am not sure what the problem with Lord Dudley is, though. Surtsicna (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it necessary to for members of any royal house to have "cadet branch of (blank) house or dynasty" at the bottom of their article where it says royal house? For example on Princess Estelle and Leonore's pages it said House of Bernadotte and underneath it previously said cadet branch of the O'Neil or Westling dynasty and I have edited it to remove that because there are no sources saying that they are cadet branches of such and such. And on some of the British royal family pages it say cadet branch of (Prince Phillip's) royal house. And another example I can think of is the Spanish royal family. I think it's unnecessary because the official royal house is listed and then you name the house of the previous dynasty so that doesn't make sense. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Estelle's father is a Bernadotte now, so there is no doubt about that. Has it been confirmed that Leonore is a Bernadotte too? Unlike the fathers of Estelle and Leonore, Philip is a member of an historical and still ruling dynasty, so I don't think it hurts to mention it. Surtsicna (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Swedish royal court has published an updated family tree for the Bernadottes where Leonore is included. So is her father and other non-dynasty in-laws, though, so confusion actually remains. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the O'Neil family can be a dynasty. "Definition of dynasty: A dynasty is a sequence of rulers considered as members of the same family." Since no one in the O'Neil family or Westling family has ruled,they are not dynasties. Also I have found a source Leonore will have the double surname Bernadotte O'Neil only on her passport (Swedish and American) and she will have no surname on the Swedish registry. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Philip VI
Excuse me but Philip VI deserves a current photograph and more aesthetically pleasing, not a photograph old and ugly aesthetically, I do not want quarrel.Per now there is this, when there will be a photograph by King who has the proportions who asked not put that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.90.113 (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

We find an agreement: a photograph uploaded to Wikipedia by King in which we see the face and not the prince.--95.232.90.113 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hypothetical
I don't know if you do hypothetical questions on phonetics, but here's one anyway for you: Let's say there was a prince of Georgia from the 10th century, basically unknown to English literature, with a very low amounts of hits on Google Books, and we are going to choose an article name for English WP. Let's say we had to choose between Burtlepp of Georgia (of which there had been only one) and Burtlepp Dzala Tavisupleba. Which should we choose? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I pondered that a few years ago while creating/expanding articles on Balkan royalty. In the end I decided to go with a name that an English-speaking non-Slav would memorize more easily. It's a bit too hypothetical to give a definite answer, but I believe I would opt for "Burtlepp of Georgia". Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you and I then have a bit of common ground here, perhaps even here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I am not sure that "Halsten of Sweden" is preferable to "Halsten_Stenkilsson". The latter form is apparently common in English language publications, while the former is never used. I'll stay out of the discussion though. Surtsicna (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

== The subject of Anne's previous marriage arrangements with the Duke of Lorraine's son eventually provided for the answer, one complicated enough that the remaining impediments to an annulment were thus removed. ==

You say this sentence means something. OK, so what does it mean? Answer to what? What were the previous marriage arrangement of relevance? What were the remaining impediments in question? How did the previous marriage arrangement impact on these impediments? None of this is apparent.

Furthermore, if you take the sentence out, the article makes sense.

--John Price (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Anne's previous marriage arrangements with the Duke of Lorraine's son" were the grounds for annulment of her marriage to Henry. Surely, the sentence is not perfect, but how does the paragraph make sense without it? It goes from saying that Henry wanted an annulment to saying that Henry got the annulment, and does not say why the marriage was annulled. Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The Obamas' Religion
I await your change to Barack Obama's religion in his article. Why haven't you done it yet? HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would I? Surtsicna (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Because his religion is shown simply as Christianity. HiLo48 (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As it should; unlike the article about Michelle, the article about Barrack does not specify denomination. Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WTF? This conversation is ridiculous. Both articles should say the same thing, surely? As I said in one of Edit summaries that should have made this conversation unnecessary, they presumably go to church together. HiLo48 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Calm the F down. It is not our job to presume anything, so your edit summary was not particularly enlightening. The infobox should be a summary of the article and I have no idea why both articles don't say the same thing. Are they both Protestants? Surtsicna (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a cultural difference, but I cannot comprehend your attitude on this matter. I thought you would see logic. I am giving up with you. Might raise it elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is indeed a cultural difference. Where I come from, a woman is not obliged or expected to share her husband's religious views. Therefore I don't see why we should presume that "they ... go to church together". Please note that I am not saying that they have different religious views. The information I restored to the infobox was already in the article. It is not present in the article about her husband. If they both identify as Protestants, the article about Barrack should say that; if neither does, the article about Michelle should be corrected; if only she does, everything is OK. Right? Surtsicna (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Norwegian princess template
Do we need two separate templates for Norwegian princesses by marriage and Norwegian princesses by birth? There aren't that many Norwegian princesses so it isn't necessary.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need templates listing princesses at all, so I am definitely in favour of reduction of such templates. Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How do we delete one of the templates?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you have to use Templates for discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please give your opinion here: Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 7--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)