User talk:The Quill/Archive index2008/December

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

T:IBR

You are not going to win an argument by suggesting that edits are racist. In fact, you'll find that's viewed in a rather poor light around here. If you can give a solid, reasoned and convincing argument on the talk page, then you could gain consensus against the changes. Otherwise, not so much. D B D 18:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Prince William

Through his mother Prince William is descended from Charles I through the illegitimate chidren of both Charles II and James II. And of course he is descended from James I's daughter Elizabeth of Bohemia and the Rhine otherwise he wouldnt have a claim to the throne through the Act of Settlement 1701 which states that only the descendants of Elizabeth's daughter Sophia of Hanover may succeed to the British (at the time English) throne Penrithguy (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

You've done a lot of these, and as far as I can see, many of them have not been discussed. Following objections from people on Talk:Mercia, I reverted that move, but I suggest that you revert all the other similar pages and discuss the matter first, instead of doing the move and then attempting to stipulate what the content of the article ought to be. For someone who claims to be semi-retired, what you have done here is quite an extensive set of undiscussed page moves. I do not recommend you to repeat any of them once they have been reverted unless you have got agreement to the moves on the appropriate talk pages. DDStretch (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Quill - can you revert your page moves on the various kingdoms please, as requested? And also, if you Google "sweyn forkbeard" and "sven the dane" you'll see very clearly which one is the more common name in English. ðarkun coll 09:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with TharkunColl over the matter of Sweyn Forkbeard as well. DDStretch (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Tring

16:24, 3 December 2008 The Quill (Talk | contribs) (8,234 bytes) (Undid revision 255639732 by Rcawsey (talk))
Why the wholesale Undo ? - no vandalism was intended. . . Rcawsey (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

British royalty styles box

Hiya Quill. I'd say that these style boxes don't need the coat of arms in them because we have the shield & blazon box lower down (see Princess Beatrice). Instead, we could use their coronets, which don't appear elsewhere on the page, as previously was the case D B D 11:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what angle you are coming from for modern members of the royal family however for those who are now dead it is confusing to see a child on the monarch cornnet. The Quill (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"By the way I would answer questions on my talk page if i could see them. (Where are they?))"

So why do you now refuse to answer? The questions are in your archive. ðarkun coll 19:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

One why do you care there not your questions (not that it matters). Two your not meant to edit archives. Three I thougt you had a question I didn't realise you had looked on my talk page and decided to talk about a question which I don't know you know anything about and which as far as I could tell was nothing to do with you whatsoever. The Quill (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the two editors who asked you the questions. And I didn't edit archives - I simply reposted the questions. ðarkun coll 19:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Which was random. The Quill (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it was very far from being random. You said you'd answer the questions if you could see them on your talk page, so I obliged. ðarkun coll 19:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but I had already dismissed the issue so it was random. The Quill (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you any idea what the word random actually means? ðarkun coll 19:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we have constructive edits only please? Yes it means something which appears to have no point or purpose taking place even though it isn't required. Do you know what it means becasue you seem a little confused yourself? The Quill (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

IP Block

Unfortunately I can't, that IP is blocked in relation to the whole UK censorship / proxy issue. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action for more info.) It has nothing to do with you. You should still be able to edit logged in. Prodego ^talk 17:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh Well thanks anyway I can still edit logged in and that is the important thing. The Quill (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images

Hi. I have noticed that you are restoring non-free images to articles despite in-line edit warnings that those specific images lack an adequate fair use rationale. Is there some particular reason why you are doing this? Road Wizard (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"British royalty" infoboxes and scope

Hello. The British royalty infoboxes were created by Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty. The "Scope" section of that page says it is for rulers from George I of Great Britain onwards. There's no obvious reason to be tagging Anglo-Saxon kings as "British Royalty". Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The scope is out of date it is now used for all English and Scottish monarchs. The Quill (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Angus. The Anglo-Saxon kings ruled at a time when British and English meant quite different things. As Angus pointed out in an edit summary, Edwin of Northumbria was killed fighting Britons, so making him a British king seems illogical to me. Mike Christie (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

British and English still mean completely differnt things. He ruled part of Briton this makes him a British King and 'Britons' are not the same as the British. The Quill (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we revert to the way things were before your edits, and then find a location to discuss these changes. This is something reasonable people can disagree on, and consensus is the right step. As it stands, your changes have been reverted by the first two editors to notice them, so I hope you'd agree that you don't yet have consensus support for these changes. Mike Christie (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how ruling part of Britain makes the subject a British king. Reductio ad absurdam: this makes Nero a British king. It makes umpteen Irish kings British kings because they ruled part of Britain. It makes Norwegian and/or Danish rulers British kings. The cases of Edwin of Deira and the like would be pretty weird as well.

Other problems: {{Infobox British Royalty}} links by default to Style of the British sovereign#List of changes to the royal style which starts with 1066 and is irrelevant to Anglo-Saxon subjects. This template does nothing relevant that boring old {{Infobox Monarch}} doesn't also provide and it adds undesirable features which have been mentioned today, i.e. newline before the subject's sprogs and loss of option to specify a size for an image.

And while I'm here, this removed content from the infobox. Please be more careful when reverting edits. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So, I guess we'll have an RfC about it. Apart from your say-so about the scope, you really haven't come up with any arguments. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There have also been problems with your move of Infobox Briton Royalty to Infobox Celtic Royalty. A considerable number of articles containing Infobox Welsh Royalty and Infobox Breton Royalty were already redirected to Infobox Briton Royalty, so your redirect broke those articles. When moving pages you MUST check for and correct double-redirects. -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 16:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So, I opened an RfC at Template talk:Infobox British Royalty#RfC: Scope and appropriateness of this template and spammed it to a few project pages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Could you please discuss on the talk page instead of reverting? I have given a comment few days ago and nobody has responed, yet you started making controversial edits to the article. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did reply to your comments on the talk page. It would be nice for you to actually reply to my comments on the talk page. Infobox German Royalty is used for monarchs who hold German nationality. Infobox British Royalty is used for people who are Royalty and English and British. So Alexandra of Denmark and Anne of Denmark should have Infobox Danish Royalty? They surely weren't British/English/Scottish until their marriage. Same for Isabella of France and Henriette Marie of France (Infobox French Royalty?), Catherine of Aragon and Eleanor of Castile (Infobox Spanish Royalty?), etc. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i thought i was the last one to edit on Matilda. Alexandra of Denmark should really yes use Infobox Danish... Unfortunatly Infobox British was made alot earlier than the other ones and people haven't bothered to change them.. The Quill (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits

Would you please not mark edits as "minor" which are not minor. See this recent edit of yours for example. Minor edits are ones where "only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." See Help:Minor edit. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That was actually a mistake ticking of the box in an attempt to slect minor edit. Really they should move it. The Quill (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

template:infobox Pope revert

Hi,

May I ask what this revert was in aid of? This was a purely technical change to fix the template's use of excessive whitespace on transcluded pages, remove unneeded code from a template page and update the out-of-date technical documentation. If the only reason for reverting was the "name", "image" comments then they are easy to put back in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You got it in one. I think it helps make the template easier to read and also reinserted thbe microformat. The Quill (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The microformat is already on the transcluded doc page. I have now restored the comment lines. In future, please either use descriptive edit summaries or notify users before reverting their changes. Reverting without summary is generally reserved for edits which are considered vandalism. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The documentation is wrong don't just edit look with your eyes! The Quill (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You are not explaining what you are seeing. The documentation on the current template:infobox Pope/doc page is exactly the same as the documentation you are adding back to the infobox page. Kindly explain clearly what the difference you are seeing is, as edit warring is not productive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As you haven't explained exactly what the problem is, and I cannot see the issue you are reverting because of, I am restoring the most recent version again. Please do not revert this again without explaining exactly what the problem is, and preferably first allowing me to try fixing it. 18:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SCOTROY

Well done on the new WikiProject! Congrats! ;) Best, --Cameron * 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and happy contributing. The Quill (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Again?

As you were told by Chris Cunningham already, this is not the done thing. Use edit summaries. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And this is not good either. If an administrator reviews the speedy deletion request and rejects it, please don't restore the tag. The next step is not to add the tag back, it's to take the template to WP:TFD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Even admin can be wrong sometimes they aren't gods. The Quill (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, admins can be wrong, but that wasn't Angus's point. If a speedy deletion tag is removed the appropriate next step is to nominate for deletion without using the speedy tag.

You might consider visiting WP:AAU and requesting a mentor, The Quill. You've had a couple of conflicts in the last week or so that I think could have been avoided with advice from someone with better understanding of Wikipedia's methods. If you'd like to put your enthusiasm to the best use, it would be worth working with someone who can show you how to get things done more smoothly. I think it would benefit you, so please consider it. Mike Christie (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Empress Matilda

I have restored this article to its title prior to the highly controversial move you carried out on 30 November. I have protected it to allow for a debate to take place on the title. If you wish to rename it, please follow the procedure described in paragraph 3 of Wikipedia:Requested moves. Deb (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article wasn't disputed. The Quill (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A dispute is not the only requirement for nominating a move via Wikipedia:Requested moves rather than moving the page directly. That page says "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could honestly disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial". Please try to avoid making potentially controversial moves without consensus; they require admin intervention to correct so it does create unnecessary work. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

But there was a consensus!!! The Quill (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the talk page it looks as if one person agreed with you and then you performed the move; multiple people then debated it and no clear consensus was reached. The discussion you started on the talk page was certainly better than not having any discussion, but the reason WP:RM specifies a five day wait is to allow all interested editors to comment. I think you'll find that if you use WP:RM, you won't get the move reverted as having been done improperly. And if there is a debate, it's best to let a third party, such as the admins who work at WP:RM, make the determination of whether there is consensus. Mike Christie (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:User Wikimedia Commons

Hi. Please discuss your change at Template talk:User Wikimedia Commons#Image_size before making it again. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)