Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of Succession to the Russian Throne- Part 1


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Line of Succession to the Russian Throne- Part 1


This article was created by a vandal who is messing up the content of Line of succession to the Russian throne to suit his own views. Frankly put, this article is trash and all of the relevant information is covered in the proper article. Charles 22:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a vandal, not all the relevant material is covered in this article- though some of my edits were kept.
 * Trash is rather a harsh word coming from you Charles- you haven't even done your own research. Tim Foxworth 17:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. This page was created solely for vandalism by User:Tfoxworth‎ so he can repeatedly redirect Line of Succession to the Russian Throne to his own fake article. wikipediatrix 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not want to make a redirect- I tried to creat a sub-article. Unfortunately- I did it wrong and have submitted a new article to Wikipedia for inclusion. Sorry for the inconvenience. Tim Foxworth 17:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you learned the code for doing a redirect without realizing what it was. Furthermore, you did it more than once, even after other editors told you to stop. wikipediatrix 16:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No- I didn't. Proof please. Tim Foxworth 16:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete and comment Obviously as the nominator, I motion for the deletion of the article. There is an associated redirect (Line of succession to the Russian Throne- Part I) that ought to be deleted as well, if an admin could get that when/if the article is deleted. Charles 22:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Charles above labels a contributor as "vandal" with too flimsy grounds. Actually, this article (written by the so-called "vandal" in Charles' designations) is a rather neutral piece of work, as to giving several essential alternatives. The only thing I really deplore in this article is the problematical opposition to "self-taken" titulary of Vladimirovichi branch (for NPOV reasons, we allow all pretenders to be mentioned with their title of pretension here, and that should be allowed to Vladimirovichi too). However, all that information (excluding the POV details) should be added to the already existing article Line of succession to the Russian throne (where all the relevant information is not yet covered, contrary to Charles' above-expressed opinion); however preferably through discussion at the talk page. Line of succession to the Russian Throne should be a redirect only, as there "Throne" does not need to be written with capital letter. A problem is that Charles, above, blindly reverts edits of the editor he sees as "vandal". I support deletion only because forks should be deleted. When now having an occasion to comment, I beseech Charles to use talk pages to discuss about differences, not edit summaries; I beseech Charles not to revert on sight despite of his heated feelings (and presumably blindly); and I ask Charles to refrain from name callings and other sorts of personal attacks. This AfD proposal (see the text Charles wrote above) includes clear personal attacks. Also, I request User:Wikipediatrix to check the language (s)he used above. Shilkanni 23:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not going to argue with you about it. The timeline of events on User:Tfoxworth‎'s contribution page speaks for itself, as do the vandalism warnings on the user's talk page. wikipediatrix 23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Warnings from Charles you mean. And as far as the 3rd warning- I never made any edits after my 24 hour block. Do try to get your facts straight. Tim Foxworth 16:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Skilkanni, I know you have a problem with me, however such issues are best dealt with in the manner you prescribe: Civilly, not as veiled rants. Charles 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hardly a rant Charles. But, why do so many people have a problem with you? Tim Foxworth 16:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Don't worry about it Shilkanni- Charles has a problem with everyone who doesn't agree with him. He does know it all after all! Tim Foxworth 17:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am not at all worrying about that. There is no such worry that Charles "knows it all" upon this matter. On the contrary. (He of course has strong opinions...) The worry is rather that he does not know enough to even recognize what is correct and what is not in this complex substance matter. After all, Charles himself wrote ten days ago: "I was wondering how much you know about the Line of succession to the Russian Throne... The article was basically a botch job of messy titles and names and loaded sentence structure. I've done a quick little fix up on it, but I do not know enough about the theoretical line of succession to verify its accuracy. If you know, would you be able to add anyone who is missing and correct the names if they are wrong? I tried to truncate the give names to what the individuals actually use but I am unfamiliar for the most part. Charles 00:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)" (copied from John Kenney's talk page, a person who knows at least something more than Charles) Shilkanni 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What I would really like to know is why Charles was allowed to do a "quick little fix up" without discussion, yet I was not. Only Charles is allowed to make edits without consulting anyone? Tim Foxworth 16:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You obviously feel that you are exempt from the "advice" that you dish out to others. I do not proclaim to know everything, but I feel I know enough about a situation to find the obvious errors even when I cannot expand upon the accuracies. I also know enough that it is wrong to apply surnames to people who do not use such names and that it is vandalism when a user reverts back to those incorrect names. I also know that is incorrect to give a lower title and style to a pretender when they use no other title and style and that it is incorrect to treat such claimants assymetrically. My primary worry is that we have a relatively experienced user (you) with some valid things to say but who has no qualms about displaying an obvious grudge and we have another who has done nothing thus far but vandalise articles even as he may be contributing. Charles 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

All of your conjecture is POV Charles. As far as pretenders using titles they are not entitled to- I see nothing wrong with using both, as long as it explained why and sources can be found for both usages- which I did. Nice try though. Tim Foxworth 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork, and if that wasn't bad enough it's a fork of a piece of crystal-ball genealogical royaltycruft of dubious value. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And your basis for this opinion whould be...? Tim Foxworth 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you have not contributed anything to this article, it might be best to keep your POV to yourself. Tim Foxworth 16:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works. Sorry? Charles 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Was that a question? Did I ask you? Perhaps Charles you should address those things addressed to you instead. It's just good manners. Tim Foxworth 17:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's my opinion, and as such it has no basis other than my woolly misapprehensions regarding deletion policy and content policy. As I read them, my criticisms were of the article of which this is a POV fork. I don't see any judgement of your piece beyond the remark that it is a blatant POV fork. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but it seems only a chosen few are allowed to edit without consulting other first. When the uninformed (Charles) do so they are allowed. Why not let those who actually know a bit about the subject matter do so as well? Just my POV. And it is not a blatant POV fork- at least my work was sourced- which the current editors have cited as their own, and I doubt they have read any of the source material. Charles admitted as much "I've done a quick little fix up on it, but I do not know enough about the theoretical line of succession to verify its accuracy." Tim Foxworth 17:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody has authorized Charles to edit over others. The situation is just that some people are more obstinate or more destructive or not willing/capable to analyze the actual issues on talkpages. Charles gets reverted relatively often, sooner or later, so it's not that he really has "privileges". When you look at the pertinent talk page, you see who are editors who are knowledgeable of the issue and capable of making sophisticated contributions. If someone who makes edits to the article, is absent from its talkpage, that gives rise to suspicions that such editor actually is not able to present any reasoning to those edits. Other people sometimes check (using diffs) worths of earlier edits - they tend to make corrective edits if needed. Ultimately, of non-talked edits mostly just self-evident things remain in the article, as those without supporting reasoning tend to be edited away sooner or later. Shilkanni 20:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete An article already exists which covers the exact same topic under a substantially similar name. This topic is inherently and notoriously contentious -- virtually no one is opinion-free, so consensus-building will require compromise, commitment to NPOV, and collaborative effort to make sense for the reading public out of a dauntingly complex issue. Tim Foxworth has acknowledged that some errors were made with edit tools and other editors, so it's now time to move forward with cooperative editing of Line of succession to the Russian throne. Lethiere 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think that is possible? When I first started editing that article there were two persons listed- Maria and Georg. Check the history. A large part of what came after was my work- and was reverted again and again by Charles without talking to me about it. He kept changing it back to just Maria and Georg. My source material is quoted, my basic premises were built upon. Who's permission do I need to continue editing? Any why should I have to ask? Thanks Lethiere Tim Foxworth 00:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research (non-speedy). 69.140.173.15 21:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How is this "original research"? All source material has been quoted-and kept in the article where this one used to be. Tim Foxworth 15:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.