User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 3

2273:

Wearing my reader hat (rather than my editor hat), I certainly find this information of interest. Given the past history I think that if you really want to eliminate them, this needs to be raised for discussion. From my perspective, I am more concerned about preserving the information, if there is a better way to do this (eg incorporating into another template) and editorially the alternative it makes sense, then you won't get any objection from me. If I there has been a recent discussion on the subject that I have missed, my apologies and feel free to point me to it. Cheers,

2515:

not. Anyway, I am not questioning the fact that they were children of a monarch (and of his wife). What I am questioning is the appropriatness of referring to them as "Prince(ss) X of Sweden", as that seems very anachronistic. It may be correct to describe them as Swedish prince and princess, since they fit the meanings of those words, but I don't think the format was appropriate - unless, of course, it can be proven that they were called "Princess Sigrid" and "Prince Eric" during their lifetimes.

835: 779: 1564: 3723: 2316: 817: 31: 1390:

young teenagers, and I hope that it's usually young teenagers asking that question instead of pre-teenagers (since it's scarier that people that young, pre-teenagers, would be asking about the specifics of oral sex) or older teenagers and adults (since they should know better). I didn't add those excerpts, by the way, and they were recently added. Anyway, thanks for the chat. We'll likely see each other around from time to time.

3567:

voice, of a relationship because it's considered unequal. The dictionary you pointed to is quoting Collins; the operative definition in the New American Oxford Dictionary is "a woman having an extramarital sexual relationship, esp. with a married man". I don't think it's a British/American difference, but rather an issue of being sensitive to connotations and tone as well as denotations. I would suggest "lover" or "paramour".

3333: 4093:. By your standards, it appears that linking to any website in the external links section would be a promotion. Why doesn't anyone go out and take the picture, donate it to WMF and then post it on the article? For as long as no one does, I don't see why we should deny readers the opportunity to see those images. The website contains several such photographs. Perhaps we should get another opinion on the subject? 826: 4300: 3974: 3871: 3776: 3626: 3037: 2904: 2080: 1841: 301: 207: 107: 3413: 915: 3242: 3184: 3135: 2996: 2592: 2175: 2033: 4115: 1357:

that you mean the Cunnilingus article (since you edited that before the Fellatio article)? As for the Sambia people, I definitely know what you mean about their peculiar fellatio practices (though it is less about fellatio in the sense of sexual stimulation for them); they are also mentioned in the Fellatio article.

3390:

Thank you very much for your appreciation, as well as for considering me fit to review the article for GA status. However, I will be away for several days, so I'm afraid I'll have to pass. I wish you best of luck with the GA review, though I doubt you'll need it. I'll make sure this barnstar stays on

2354:

Sorry if I stepped on your toes, but that edit not only did not have an edit summery, but it literally read: "Fraciscus PP", which looks like vandalism to me. I'd rather protect the integrity of Knowledge (XXG) 100 times over by reverting possible, and I did say "possible" in my edit summery, than be

3492:

Just letting you know that when I added my comments to the talk page discussion about moving this article, I added a bolded "move" just above your reply, in accordance with what seems to be general practice with "keep/delete" or "move/retain" discussions like this. I hope you don't mind; if you do,

2272:

G'day Surtsicna, you appear to have started to unilaterally remove the royal styles templates as you believe them to be pointless and to add nothing. Per previous discussions on this subject, there are reasons that other editors have found it useful to include them (and a few editors who disagreed).

1992:

from the line by the Grondwet, and thus it is clear they should not appear in the chart. Should some disaster befall the 7 higher-placed heirs while their mother is still alive, they will return. That is when they and their children should be added back in. Not before. The only reason the two former

1964:

The article does not say that they are in the line. What we have there is a graphical representation of relationships between people who are in the line. Princess Beatrix is also there, although she cannot possibly ascend the throne again. In fact, Prince Maurits has a better chance at ascending the

1389:

Thanks for clarifying. I was wondering how you got to the Cunnilingus article before the Fellatio article after reading about the Sambia people and their semen ingestion custom. And, LOL, "an excerpt from a teen magazine"? Yes, "Can you get pregnant from oral sex?" has seemed to be asked by a lot of

2845:

Surtsicna, my own concern was that you made the text incoherent by changing my first progressive form, only, to future tense, while leaving the others. Hopefully checking the history and simply reverting me wholesale (if possible with an explanatory edit summary), which I wouldn't have objected to,

2293:

add anything. They were directly and absolutely redundant to the very text they appeared next to. In those cases, even the image of the coat of arms appeared elsewhere. I refrained from removing the template in cases where at least one part of it - the image of the coat of arms - was not redundant,

1728:

Please check the Dutch Royal Site attached. She is styled with the formal name of Queen, but she is NOT Queen of the Netherlands. This was officially stated by the Royal House and the Dutch Government. Her name is Queen Maxima, her title is Princess of the Netherlands. I have attached prove of this

884:

One of the many silent workers on Knowledge (XXG), Surtsicna has been an example for all of Knowledge (XXG) through his ceaseless editing without a single page about himself. His 30000+ article edits and 140+ articles created speak volumes about his dedication to the project. His articles are based

2876:

I saw that your INT nomination was going to fail, so I decided to expand it and nominate for DYK instead. It had potential, so it would have been a shame if it failed to appear on the Main Page. Anyway, I restored the red link to Michael Bjerkhagen. The Swedish Knowledge (XXG) has an article about

2514:

That does not sound very convincing, SergeWoodzing. It makes no sense to request a source that says what they were not. By that logic, I would be able to claim that they were, in fact, extraterrestrials, and you would not be able to refute it because there is no source that confirms that they were

1356:

Oh, your having already seen my replies means that you are watching those articles now. An extra pair of eyes on those articles from a good editor, as you seem to be, is certainly a good thing. And by "an encyclopaedic article that specifically denies that oral sex can cause pregnancy," I take it

3566:

I think girlfriend is probably closer to the truth than mistress is (or prostitute!), but I don't have a strong objection to continuing "mistress" if we can't find an alternative. "Mistress", though, certainly is a disapproving term, and I'm not sure Knowledge (XXG) should disapprove, in its own

1491:

King Edward the Confessor of England ordered the killing of Rhys in reprisal for his raiding of England, the decision being made at the royal court held at Christmas, 1052. Rhys was killed, according to the D version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, because he "did harmful things". The chronicle of

2742:

Hi! I am sorry, I should have explained it. I did not pay attention to page history. I don't think we should present continuous, i.e. we should go from "will take place" to "took place", because this is an encyclopedia, not a news portal. Anyway, this issue is going to be moot within minutes :)

2466:

How do you arrive at the standpoint that Prince Gustav and Princess Sigrid did not bear those titles, and then proceed to move them without discussion to article names with phonetically non-empathetic patronyms (we should avoid Swedish lessons on English WP)? I'm not too pleased about it. A bit

989:

as Editor of the Week for being an excellent Wikipedian, who seems to go out of his way to remain under-appreciated. He seems to work on Knowledge (XXG) for the sheer joy of editing, creating over 160 articles (he's brought around 40 to DYK in the past 6 months) and racking up over 30k edits to

2549:

There is nothing bizarre about my request for a proof that they were styled "Prince(ss) X of Sweden". It is the most reasonable request a user can make during a discussion. If they were styled as such, you should have no problem whatsoever in finding proof. They did not live before writing was

1252:

I saw that you removed those templates, because they add nothing to the articles. But you just removed them from the articles of the British Royal Family members, but I think we should remove them from the articles of all Royal Families. What do you think? Also, I removed a paragraph from the

3578:

Uh, yes, I forgot to point out that Rybicka (or her ghost or whatever) should be happy we're not calling her a prostitute. Several other Wikipedias do, which is why it took me so long to find the sources. I kept looking for a prince murdered by a prostitute until I learned of her name at the

3221:! I've had it on my Knowledge (XXG) to-do list for years now, so I was elated to see that you drafted such a comprehensive article on him! I'll remove him from my list, and will keep on the lookout for additional images. Thanks again for all extraordinary contributions to Knowledge (XXG)! -- 1983:

On the contrary. By including them in the chart, the implication is clear: the article is titled 'Line of Succession to the Dutch Throne' The subsection and chart is titled 'Line of Succession'. As you said just now yourself, it 'is a graphical representation of relationships between people

4226:

Of course you may, but I am not entirely sure if I can answer correctly to that one. Is it not possible that A is B's legitimated child (legitimated through a decree, for example) by an unwed partner and thus not the son of C, or that A is B's adopted child who was not also adopted by C?

4067:

points #1, #4, #12 and #13, we are not here to promote "Find-A-Grave". Any person can go out and take a picture of the grave at Arlington, donate to the WMF, and then post it on the article. We do not need to link to this site to get an image of the headstone. It's a spam external link.

3670: 3009: 2002:

The notes under the chart make it clear that Margriet has four sons, two of whom could be in line to the throne should she ever come to the throne herself, and explain why it is they are not (currently) in the line of succession. That is the best way to represent this

1767:

You asked for a discussion on your TALK page, yet refuse to join into one. You insist upon your own interpretation and offer nothing is reference. Please stop deleting the referring pages or add your own. It is impolite and might might even be taken for vandalism.

1648:

Hahahaha! I must say the title made me laugh! Anyway, pardon my jumping the gun. I was not aware of that requirement. When exactly is that supposed to happen? The eagerness of editors to make articles up to date is guaranteed to lead to mistakes such as mine.

4210:

I see. May I ask another question? If I have sources stating that A was B's legitimate son and I also have sources that B was married to C and they both married only once in their lifetime, is it considered original research to state that A was a son of

1375:, but did not notice the pregnancy part until navigating to the article on cunnilingus. What I meant was that I did not expect to find an excerpt from a teen magazine in an encyclopaedia article - which, by the way, is otherwise uncommonly well-written. 2216: 1148:

Hi! I would not report him or her yet. It appears that the editor truly wants to improve the article, but does not understand that adding tabloid speculation is not the way to do so. Could you add the warning template? I cannot remember how that works.

1416:

Thanks for your kind words about this article! I'm planning to nominate it for GA status after the DYK is done. You might be interested in a related article - I've collaborated with another editor to write an article on one of her most famous gardens,

1627:

The Succession Act may have received Royal Assent and passed into law, but its provisions don't come into effect until such time as the Lord Pres (Clegg) says so. That is to say, the throne still, as of right now, descends according to the 1701 Act.

1253:

beginig of the article of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall because I think all of those things were in the other sections. They really weren't important things. You can see it on the revision history of the article. Should I remove that paragraph again?

4345: 3255: 2499:

Are there any sources that confirm that they were not? Their parents were crowned monarchs (even if relatively briefly). Why wouldn't they be? I've never seen this questioned before. Why are you questioning it? Can you be specific, please?

2679:; apparently, she can be princess of a country that hasn't existed since 1866. Anyway, Alexander is styled as crown prince by convention. Knowledge (XXG) uses the most common English language name, not the legal name (otherwise we'd have 2946: 2605: 1703:, etc. It looks like, you have not used any of the usual channels for a series of controversial page-moves, not only regarding Poland and Norway, but also Hungary and Russia... Regrettably, your new titles seem to lack the necessary 686:

Hi! Interesting. I searched for something like that in English, but could not find anything but indications that the succession law was bizarrely vague. What exactly does it say? Also, how do we know that Irene is the last in line?

1499:

Also, the fourth line of the third paragraph of the section entitled "Canonisation" reads: "... canonization...". I think this should be changed in order to read: "... canonisation..." as it appears in the title of the section.

2373:. It may have looked like vandalism to you, but only because you are not well acquainted with the matter. You could (should) have Googled it, which would have taken you a few seconds. You are missing the entire point of the 2288:

Hi! I was not aware of any such discussion but I am sure that, had a seperate one been opened for each of the articles, it would have resulted in the removal of the template. In articles I removed them from, they simply did

3593:

It certainly sounds like one wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of Rybicka, even of her ghost... I think "the Prince's lover" is a really great substitution from mistress! Thanks for indulging me in fixing this little

3075: 926: 1267:

Yes, I believe we should remove them on sight. They are inherently trivial and almost always redundant. As for the paragraph, I don't see anything wrong with it. It is a nice summary, which is what the lead is all about.

885:

primarily on Medieval nobility and royal families and have been the focus of over 40 DYKs. His simple talk page showcases the humility of the type of underappreciated editor who forms the backbone of this encyclopedia.

505:

in Ottoman Turkish was used for the monarch, his consort or consorts and his mother. Thus, I think the "S" should be capitalized as the "Q" is capitalized in Queen consort. And also it's better for you to know the word

666:

Good evening my friend. Of Course there is a source that suggests that the crown passed according to male-preferance cognatic primogeniture. Article 45 of the constitution of Kingdom of Greece describes that clearly.

3916: 1663:

Clegg is likely to announce the commencement as soon as the last necessary law in the last necessary realm receives royal assent... There's a source for that somewhere. No worries, we all jump the gun sometimes!

3822: 3197: 1422: 2534:

like "Eriksdotter" (which she was not called "during her lifetime") to English WP, were controversial and should not have taken place without discussion. Please revert them and request a move in due process!

4153:

I am extremely sorry for this. I had thought that you had supposed that it was a different person, only from the fact that the image had another name and that you didn't know that she used both names. Sorry

2529:

Your demand here borders on the bizarre. How many 16th century princes and princesses can that be "proven" about? Would you like photo-ID's? Driver licenses? In any case, the moves you did, adding another

4176:

Concerning straightforward sources, do you mean that when we have sources that someone was born in 1834 and died in 1879 but we don't have sources stating that he was 45 years old, we can't add the age?--

3660: 3644: 3000: 3664: 1993:

queens appear here, is to show how and why Constantijn and Margriet are in line to succeed, otherwise they too would no longer appear, since one is 'constituionally dead' and the other is actually dead.

2129: 2046: 1582: 342: 871: 825: 1342:

when I came across an encyclopaedic article that specifically denies that oral sex can cause pregnancy. I would not have been surprised had it been worded differently, i.e. less obviously.

1949:

Yes, they could return to the line if their mother were Queen, but she is not. If she ever is, that will be the right time to include these two princes in a chart showing the succession.

438:

I don't know Turkish very well, but according to Turkish Knowledge (XXG) the "s" should be capitalized. I think it's different from European titles and also the other Eastern titles like

2550:

invented, did they? Anyway, the idea that an inaccurate and misleading title is better than a "phonetically non-empathetic patronym" seems a bit odd, to say the least. I could live with

1745:

The title of the page should -according to Wiki rules- actually read Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands just as Charles, Prince of Wales or Willem-Alexander, King of the Netherlands.

3752:

Many thanks for the barnstar, Qexigator! It's terrible that I even had to earn it, but I was truly shocked by such impertinence. Hopefully, I'll never get to give you such a barnstar.

1319:

about the ridiculousness of the notion of oral sex causing pregnancy, but I decided that I should point out to you that some people have pondered the question with regard to fellatio.

149: 3124: 2701:

Ok, tnx for the info, i simple presumed since he isnt called crown prince of yugoslavia in his home country, that also on en. wiki should not be called crown prince of yugoslavia. -

1130: 3349:

for DYK. I'm glad you asked me to change the hook as it was absolutely not appropriate. I would like you to have this as a reward for the niceness you displayed while reviewing.

2631: 2634:

in preparation for another run at FAC. Because you had some comments in regard to content, I thought I'd alert you - that's a good place to raise issues before FAC. Thanks,

1887: 1692: 3407: 2188: 3536:

man". A married man can have a mistress; an unmarried man has a girlfriend who puts out. I'm willing to admit there may be no easy encyclopedic way of expressing that. -

2656:

I saw that you annulled my changes, he can not be crown prince of a country that does not exist, on serbian wiki is named by his proper name Aleksandar II Karađorđević -

709:

Explanation reference: The fact of the article is that by preference the Greek Crown is inherited by the issues of the current monarch by seniority, with male preference.

704:

The Greek Crown, and its constitutional rights are heritable and contained in the direct and legimate descendants of King George I by seniority, with male preference.

4327: 4318: 3529: 3246: 3218: 252: 2404:

I cannot (and don't want to) tell you how to behave, but don't be surprised if people get offended and react very negatively to such thoughtless actions. Cheers,

2329: 4015: 3548:

Thanks. I see what you mean, but which word do you think we should use instead? "Girlfriend"? I don't mind it if you insist it's more accurate. According to

2931: 2922: 2596: 2012:

The line of succession to the British throne does not serve as a comparison, because that line is not limited by degrees of kinship as the Dutch throne is.

1107:

The past two days have been terrible and, as silly as it might sound, coming back to this message has been somewhat soothing. Thank you all for noticing!

1492:

Florence of Worcester recorded a bit more information, stating that Rhys was killed at "Bulendun", which may be Bullen's Bank near Clyro in Radnorshire.

4137:

Unfortunately, the image you removed was actually an image of Catherine of Bosnia. Catherine of St Sava is an alternative name of her. Be more careful.

3290: 1795:

I may not be fully aware of all wikipedia's conventions but please can you explain why you have removed Catharina-Amalia's photograph from her page?

816: 3162: 3145: 2727:, which was surely an improvement. I can see the wedding on TV right now and for some hours to come. Do you believe you have better information? 3448:

It is supposed to be unnecessary as anyone reading the discussion would conclude that it's approved, but.. Thanks for your prompt response. :)

3064: 3055: 960: 4239:. Such situations rarely arise, and when they do, historians or biographers usually offer explanations, so I doubt any OR would be necessary. 459:

That does not make sense. This Knowledge (XXG) is in English and it is natural to adhere to English language grammar and orthography. We have

1517: 2235: 4009: 1043: 590:, for example. Knowledge (XXG) is terribly inconsistent regarding these things, so we should consult the Manual of Style when in doubt. 2391:

Like I said, if it looks like vandalism its getting reverted. Better to be safe than sorry. Thats not a faith thing, its a BLP thing.--

146:, overcame a nuclear physicist's one-man invasion attempt and remains the only inhabitant allowed to keep pigeons and unspayed bitches? 3898: 3889: 3802: 1775: 3807: 3794: 3188: 735:

to bring consistency to the intros of all 266 papal bios articles. If you're gonna revert my capitalization of pope? then do so for

501:

Dear Surtsicna! I really thought about what you said. I think Haseki Sultan isn't a title like Queen consort. As you know, the word

4192: 3680: 398:. I also checked Turkish Knowledge (XXG) about this. I tried to correct it, but I couldn't. So please correct it yourself. Thanks. 2821:

policy ("Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias"). What did you have in mind, BabbaQ?

1213:

when I read the first sentence and gulped because it was wrong. I couldn't get it right, so thanks so much for stepping in there.

4089:

Hi! Thanks for contacting me, but perhaps the article talk page would be a better place. Anyway, I think you are misinterpreting

1418: 233: 2294:

though only because I was too lazy to simply replace the box with the image itself, which would be a much more useful solution.

1952:

I am going to re-revert, and put something on the article's talk page so we can have some additional input from other people.

1488:... Because in the third paragraph of the Knowledge (XXG)'s entry or article "Rhys ap Rhydderch" anyone can read the following: 1129:

Looks like that editor has already reached 3RR? Maybe someone should add a warning template at their Talk Page? Or even file at

1752: 1736: 954: 1482:"In 1053 Edward ordered the assassination of the south Welsh prince, Rhys ap Rhydderch in reprisal for a raid on England,..." 794: 4364: