Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:11, 11 February 2015

Hello, congratulations on your many contributions. I noticed you contributed on the article regarding Charles 11 recently and wondered if you had noticed any errors around the reign of the king over the Scots. The Scottish crown is continuous from its beginning in the early ages unlike the English crown. Furthermore there is no title King or Queen of Scotland but King or Queen of Scots. Charles 11 was surely also by this time King of Great Britain and Ireland and not know correctly as King of England and King of Scotland which ceased to exist a time before i believe at the start of James Vi and I reign. Just started looking at this great site, dont know how to edit or dont feel i should but its very worthwhile while it's accurate and less so when not. I once again congratulate your contribution. Kr Will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runforfree (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! There are contemporary proclamations and treaties, etc., which use the formula "King of Scotland", so I'm sure use of that title in the article is fine. While the title "King of Great Britain" was used by Charles in some circumstances, I think I'm right in saying that this was not recognized by the English parliament, and during his reign the two kingdoms of England and Scotland were still legally separate. They did not unify until the Acts of Union 1707, even though they were held in personal union by the same person as a monarch of each. For this reason, on wikipedia the two titles are kept separate until that date. DrKiernan (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II's infobox

Just wanted to thank you for changing your stance & choosing to support ..of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms :) GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. What your opponents do not appear to realize is that by being consistently nasty to their former friends, they lose them. While editors who approach other users politely and gratefully, as you have just done, will win them. DrKiernan (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bardiya

I noticed that you have edited some information about Bardiya. I desperatly looking for any information re his life. I don't believe the biased Egyptian and greek interpretation of his life as they were persian enemies at the time. Anyway, do you know, name of the Egyption princess who were sent to persia to marry Cambiz? And was the cause of the great war between two countries? I really appreciate this. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdhtaran (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this topic is outside my area of expertise. DrKiernan (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

History of Dominion of Pakistan

I am planning to write History of Dominion of Pakistan article. Nestwiki (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't since the history should not be split from the main article until the main article is large enough to merit a split. DrKiernan (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots

Hello,how are you. First I want to tell you I find the article Mary Queen of Scots wonderful. I think a few lines added could make it better,if it is okay with you I could send them on your Talk Page,I know the history of this article and I want to have your approval; if not I'll not make any changes. At the beginning of this article, it is written that any attempt to make it better is welcomed. Concerning my sourced contribution, why was it removed? was it bad for the article ? You decide and please let's think about the future on how to cooperate together for better improvement. Thank you.Aubmn(talk)Aubmn (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I will look at this tomorrow. My main concern is about linking the Throckmorton Plot to the Anglo-Spanish War so directly. I suspect many separate events contributed to the start of the war, and singling out the plot alone gives it undue weight as a cause. DrKiernan (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine, thank you, I'm convinced by your argument about the Throckmorton plot although we could say it led to the expulsion of the Spanish ambassador, I'm going to send you my ideas here and you decide.Aubmn (talk)Aubmn (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find any mention of Don John or Parry on the pages of Guy that you provided as a source, or find them in the index. I did find them mentioned in passing in Fraser and Donaldson. So, something suitable might be:

... Plots centred on Mary continued. Pope Gregory XIII endorsed one plan in the latter half of the 1570s to marry her to the governor of the Low Countries and half-brother of Philip II of Spain, Don John of Austria, who was supposed to organise the invasion of England from the Spanish Netherlands. After the Throckmorton Plot of 1583, Walsingham introduced the Bond of Association and the Act for the Queen's Safety, which sanctioned the killing of anyone who plotted against Elizabeth and aimed to prevent a putative successor from profiting from her murder. In February 1585, William Parry was convicted of plotting to assassinate Elizabeth, without Mary's knowledge, though her agent Thomas Morgan was implicated. In April, Mary was placed in the stricter custody of Sir Amias Paulet, and at Christmas she was moved to a moated manor house at Chartley.

However, I need to do a little more reading around the Don John plan as Mary's awareness of it is not clear from my reading of Fraser or Donaldson. DrKiernan (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Great, I totally agreeAubmn(talk)Aubmn (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Have you seen that lost entry on this page above the index? You may wish to move it into date order and give it a header or it will be forgotten. Britmax (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! DrKiernan (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Article titles

Many of the Japanese Imperial articles have been moved and I'm not sure if that is a good thing when we were already content since the latest article changes around 2005 with what we already have. Takahito, Prince Mikasa was moved to Prince Mikasa etc. There are others although Aiko, Princess Toshi has not been moved. I find it odd especially since the Imperial Family template lists the royals as The Prince Mikasa etc. It also misleads that his name is Mikasa when in fact that is his title. In Japan he is known as Prince Mikasa (in Japanese) similar to how the Prince William is known as Duke of Cambridge even though his given name is Takahito. There was also no consensus to move. I checked and the user who moved the articles happens to be an administrator.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As the articles have been moved back and forth, I'm afraid you'll have to follow the process at Misplaced Pages:Requested move#Requesting potentially controversial moves. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Japanese Imperial Family

Hello. A user moved the pages of the Japanese Imperial Family without any discussion. As an administrator he should know that it was better to a start a discussion on the talk page. His reason for changing the titles was the official website of Imperial Household Agency, because it refers to them like this: HIH Prince/ss X. Well on Misplaced Pages the royal family members' articles are titled like this: "Name, Prince of X". British royal family's website also refers to them by their titles like HRH The Prince of Wales but on Misplaced Pages his article's title is Charles, Prince of Wales. Most of the articles of royal families are titled like this, so it is a kind of rule. Even Japanese Misplaced Pages includes the names of their royals on its articles' titles. I left a similar message on his talk page, but he hasn't been online for a while. What should I do now? Keivan.f 19:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your discussion with Hipposcrashed. Is there any other way for changing the titles? Keivan.f 19:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

None that I'm aware of, sorry. DrKiernan (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I move them again myself? Because it takes a long time to give a move request and then wait for the result. :( Keivan.f 19:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect Gryffindor will move them back again if you do. DrKiernan (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, what's your idea? Princess Akishino or Kiko, Princess Akishino? Keivan.f 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As she is the only Princess Akishino, I think it's fine, but I can't say I have any preference really. DrKiernan (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. But if the succession rules change in favor of Princess Aiko to become empress, then Kiko's son becomes Prince Akishino after his father's death and his wife will be styled as Princess Akishino. Actually, if Prince Mikasa's son, Prince Tomohito, didn't die sooner than his father, he would become Prince Mikasa and his wife would become Princess Mikasa. If Hirohito's other brothers had sons, they would carry on their fathers' titles now. So it's better to use their first names before their titles to avoid from confusing in the future. Keivan.f 22:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

She is the only current Princess Akishino if there are others in the future, we will have more disputes.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Being Princess Akishino is not the main point. Using only their royal titles as their articles' names doesn't seem to be good. Also Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, is the only current Duchess of Cambridge but it doesn't mean that we should use only her royal title and move the article to "Duchess of Cambridge". Gryffindor also moved Nobuhito, Prince Takamatsu, to Prince Takamatsu while it has been the second creation of this title and he hasn't been the only person to use it. Keivan.f 16:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If only Prince Tomohito hadn't passed away before his father. It seems the titles are hereditary, no ? Besides, many sites and blogs refer to them by first name or full name with the title. --Killuminator (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have three supports for a requested move (Keivan.f; Killuminator; Hipposcrashed). So, it looks likely that a requested move would succeed. DrKiernan (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are hereditary, but unfortunately most of the members of the imperial family are females. I'm giving a move request. Keivan.f 17:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@DrKiernan, @Killuminator:, @Hipposcrashed: if you like please participate in this discussion and support or oppose this request. Keivan.f 19:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Maymichael2

Hello. I saw that you recently blocked Maymichael2 (talk · contribs) for block evasion related to 24.22.40.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked for disruptive editing. I was wondering if you were aware of Mmay2 (talk · contribs), who was indeffed in September 2013. While it has not been proven, I believe it to be the same person. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

New FAR coordinator

Hi DrK, following the closure of the FAC and FAR coordinator proposal earlier today, I've taken the liberty of adding your name to the FAR instructions and the @FAR template. Congratulations and look forward to working with you in FA space! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, good to have you aboard! - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Princes of Jordan

Dear Sir

Do you think is is a good idea to do this:

• Prince Hashem bin Al-Abdullah
• Prince Hashem of Jordan (born 2005)

Because I am thinking of doing that. Mr Hall of England (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd favor the original name personally, as natural disambiguation without parentheses is preferable. Per Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating, when a parenthetical disambiguator is used it should be a descriptor (i.e. a profession). Dates are only used in exceptional cases when two people share the same name and profession. DrKiernan (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Schloss Weimar

Hello
I notice that you closed this request move discussion the other day; can you tell me why it failed? I had thought the rename was in keeping with the relevant naming conventions, and accordance with policy and guidelines, while the objections were not (I felt) substantiated when challenged. So I'm wondering what the problem was with it. Can you enlighten me? Moonraker12 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Pages can be moved when consensus is clear but when consensus is not clearly for the move, as in a case where a sound proposal has attracted only opposition, the default is to retain the original. DrKiernan (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My thanks (belatedly!) for the explanation.

I can see that the lack of support for this proposal didn't help, though I did think that one voice plus the guidelines would constitute a majority (and I didn't notify the people who discussed the move last time, as I didn't want to be canvassing)

Still, it is frustrating that, if the proposed name is sound, the article is going to be tied to a less sound one. Have you any suggestions? Or do I just bite the bullet on it? Moonraker12 (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I would think it fine to open a new move request and notify previous participants, provided you notified all previous participants whatever their opinion. DrKiernan (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OK: Thanks. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

canadiansoldiers.com

Did it occur to you to just contact the webmaster?

madorosh@shaw.ca

The 2nd Canadian Division material did indeed come from the website, and it predated 2011. The web archive only captured the material from one format. The site has appeared in a number of formats, including a revamp when the webmaster experimented using the Wikimedia platform to run the site. The sniffiness if probably more recent.Michael Dorosh 22:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are you being sniffy with me? I defended your website from plagiarism, so I don't appreciate being dressed down for supporting you. DrKiernan (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Pedro I of Brazil/archive1

I'm sorry it's come to this, but we cannot actively mislead our audience by claiming conspiracy theories support changing historical documents to how we think they should be. Adam Cuerden 00:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Family tree

Hello. Do you know anyone who can edit family trees on Misplaced Pages? I think in the Imperial House of Japan's article all those who are neither living members of the family nor ancestors of living members of the family, and also ex-princesses should be removed. Exactly like British Royal Family's family tree. Keivan.f 08:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Those trees are a right pain to edit. I wouldn't wish editing them on anyone! DrKiernan (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

They can be a pain, but I'm very interested in genealogy and will take a look, if I can. I've done some work with a couple of lines of succession pages, so hopefully that'll be of some help! ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I now have two versions of a tree based off the one used in the British Royal Family's family tree page, which I will now post on the Imperial House of Japan's discussion page. ~Iamthecheese44 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi DrKiernan. I am an sysop on Portuguese Misplaced Pages. There I blocked the user Guilherme Styles after a consensus between the sysops. I see that you blocked the user Cléééston a few days ago with the accusation of abuse of multiple accounts. How you reached this conclusion? Exists an checkuser results? Thanks in advance. Érico Wouters (msg) 05:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Replied by email. DrKiernan (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Queen Alexandra's infobox

Hello, I was just curious as to why you undid my edit on Queen Alexandra's houses. The Royal Infobox template seems to call for clarifying whether a person belongs to a house by birth or by marriage. I don't mean to sound combative, or anything, I'd just like to know for future reference when I'm editing infoboxes. Best, Iamthecheese44 (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• User:Surtsicna raised a question about it . Personally, I would like to see this parameter removed totally from the infobox of most non-monarchs, since very few if any encyclopedias show the parameter in their articles on these people. Consequently, we should do the same. DrKiernan (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Vivien Leigh

Great work! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

John Barrymore

Re: your edit here, I disagree that this linkage should be removed. Nowhere else in the article is it stated what is on Barrymore's present tombstone/grave-marker - "Alas poor Yorick" Hamlet - though one reference does mention the "Goodnight Sweet Prince" epitaph on the previous/Calvary Cemetery tombstone. In my opinion, then, per Template:Find a Grave#Usage guidance ("the website contains unique information not already mentioned and cited in the body of the article") and Misplaced Pages:External links/Perennial websites#Find-a-Grave ("Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images and location information of graves."), this FindAGrave linkage should remain in the article as an External link. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If you restore the link, please add a hidden comment as recommended at Misplaced Pages:Find-A-Grave famous people#When adding information to articles. DrKiernan (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The FindAGrave 'famous people/hidden comment' states "If you add facts from Find a Grave into the article" so the intended usage is for when an editor is adding information directly into the article-text, but I'll use it somehow - might keep the linkage from being deleted in the future. Shearonink (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this is fun, figuring out how to craft the External Linkage (while honoring all the attendant guidelines) so it won't all be automatically reverted... Shearonink (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. A brief hidden note is not going to bother many people, if anyone. DrKiernan (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Done! I found when adding that hidden comment is that it does disappear from the text which is good and bad. If I had left the material completely hidden, editors reading the article in the future (and not seeing the underlying comment) would probably have thought "where's the source?" and then reached for their automatic reversion/deletion button. I just wanted to stave off any possible automatic deletions of the material, so my hidden note etc. isn't so brief...

Oh well, already deleted before I hit Save Edit here. All that work for nothing. Shearonink (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ordinarily, uploading a freely-licensed picture of the grave could be another way to go, but unfortunately I can't find one that is unambiguously public domain, sorry. DrKiernan (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (FAR)

Thank you for catching that problem. I tested all cases, but didn't notice the vanishing edit link (sigh). If you have a good idea, please let me know :) - that's slightly more complicated than expected (I don't see, "why" the edit link would vanish for a valid header). GermanJoe (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably fixed: we should watch for nominators putting new noms above the noinclude though. DrKiernan (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems to work now - thanks again. Weird, that noinclude directly before the header influences the edit link - but the workaround does the trick. We'll just have to watch how it works out, agree. GermanJoe (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil

Please, take a look at this. That user who wanted another version of Pedro I is trying hard to push his version. And he uses friends to aid him so as to appear that he is not alone. Look at what he said when I told him to stop. That's clearly a disruptive behavior. What are your thoughts? --Lecen (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is disruptive. He is uploading his favored file over the other one, even though his favored file is already uploaded under a different name. So, it is clearly unnecessary to upload his favored file for a second time: there should only be a single copy of any one specific file. I suspect he's deliberately trying to get it deleted as a duplicate. You may have to upload your version to wikipedia with a {{Do not move to commons}} tag on it. DrKiernan (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Now they are harassing me. --Lecen (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the discussion on the admin board is concluded with the protection of the file. Now we have to try and win the argument for keeping the two files separate. DrKiernan (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/81.129.123.46 Comment

Regarding this user, sorry about not reverting the edit to your talk page. I'm not exactly sure what to do with block evasion. I was about to report the IP but while filling stuff out on TW, noticed the user was already blocked. NDKilla 19:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for patrolling! Please do continue to report block evasion, just in case it's missed by the blocking admin. DrKiernan (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil

While I think you are highly misguided in your defense of that image, I didn't actually mean to change that one. Had a bunch of windows open, and changed the wrong one. Adam Cuerden 11:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're being unnecessarily confrontational about a trivial issue. If you handled this with more subtlety, you'd probably have gotten your way by now, or at least gained support from others. DrKiernan (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You do realize Lecen - so far as the evidence can tell - intentionally lied about his sources to create a second modified copy of the Google Art Project scan, while claiming it came from a 1972 book, when any comparison with the Google Art Project scan - and the complete lack of halftoning artefacts in the supposed book scan - showed very strong evidence that he was just making his source up. I may have argued forcefully, but I've tried to always state facts as accurately as I can tell. I, admittedly, was badly wrongfooted by the Anomino image having its source lied about, but if Lecen's going to downscale notable images to modify them without good justifications, and not properly document...

And, frankly, Lecen doesn't really know what he's doing. He upped blue, when, if you think the image is too vivid, you tweak the saturation levels, you don't change the RGB levels. This whole thing comes down to one fact: We shouldn't be using bad, downscaled copies, modified using original research - and justified by no sources actually related to the painting - on Misplaced Pages. Adam Cuerden 12:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean that you would accept an upload of a file that was solely modified in terms of saturation levels? Because I believe I've done that on this version. DrKiernan (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you see this??? He erased a painting that was voted to be kept! --Lecen (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

DrKiernan, compare the three files with a photo of the painting hanging on wall. Here. --Lecen (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the "Anonimo" version is the one that, of the three files, is most like the other copies of this picture elsewhere in the world. The original file is unlike any other copy of this picture that I've ever seen; I'd be interested to know its real provenance. If we fail to have the file restored, however, I think we need a back up that is at least better than the google file, which is in my opinion the worst of the three. DrKiernan (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is what "Yann", the administrator who erased the file without discussion wrote me: "Also, you don't need to spread your (wrong) arguments everywhere." If he has clearly taken a side in the dispute, he shouldn't have erased the file, even less without discussion and against previous consensus. --Lecen (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

See this. --Lecen (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)