User talk:Dimadick/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This 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.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

It is hard to figure out which comments on Talk:Adolf Hitler are yours and which are by other people. Please try to make this clearer, thanks. --zero 09:24, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello Dimadick! I noticed your corrections in Roman emperor. When you do them, can you please update List of Roman emperors accordingly? Thanks, Muriel Victoria 14:44, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Contents

WikiProject Ancient Egypt

Hello, I see you haven't been online recently, but I'll drop this off here anyway in case you show up again. I pleasantly recall (from discussions on the Akhenaten page) your iterest in Egypt. A group of people have been discussing the standardization of the names & dates of rulers in this subject, and have a page for their project. As a result of this discussion, they've put together a list of rulers & dates as a talking point for their proposed standard, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Temp, if you'd be interested in looking at it; you'd also be most welcome to join the discussion on the talk pages. Noel 09:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Demetrius Palaeologus

I am interested to know your source for fact that Mehmed II has married daughter of Demetrius. Looking in works of Gibbon I have find that yes Mehmed II has meeting for matrimony with Demetrius daughter but after looking her she is returned to father. If nothing else there has not been favorite wife in life of any Turkish sultan until 1550. Rjecina.

I found an article on her in a Greek encyclopedia. I think it was "Nea Domi" which has a very detailed article on the Dynasty and about fifty of its members. Confirmed it from geneological trees of the Dynasty in printed sources and similar references in Internet geneologies. The "favorite" was taken from only the encyclopedia article and can be removed if it gives the wrong impression of a politically influential wife.

Mehmed similarly wed daughters from the ruling dynasty of the Empire of Trebizond in an apparent effort to establish himself as its successor.

Gibbon sometimes went out of his way to ridicule his subjects. See his references for Saint George for example: "From this obscure and servile origin he raised himself by the talents of a parasite; and the patrons, whom he assiduously flattered, procured for their worthless dependent a lucrative commission, or contract, to supply the army with bacon. His employment was mean; he rendered it infamous." I have yet to find his sources on George being an army supplier User:Dimadick

I have make little change with writen reasons. To tell truth I have expected that you will answer on my discussion page. In the end of article you can add name of your source. You can say that I support Thomas in the end because he has been from my reading more or less warrior, and Demetrius not. Hope that you can agree that heir if we look legal things is Thomas, if nothing else because ruler must be of ortodox fatih ( this put questions about Andreas because I don't know his faith ). Yes I know for brothers friendship John VIII, Constantine XI, Thomas. I have questions for you. Has Osman lived outside or inside Byzantine empire when he has started his war against Byzantium and second Andronicus V son of John VII has lived or not ? User:rjecina

I have information about Andronicus V from yugoslav ( serbian ) book: John VIII from around 1989. There are all Palaeologus family members. Simple telling book is about John VIII family. In that Andronicus V has died before 10 birthday ( in 1399 he is dead ). Must important source for that book has been George Sphrantzes : The Fall of Byzantine empire . User:rjecina

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Robert Reid (bishop)

Thanks for moving Bishop Reid to what looks a much better title: sorry I'm not up enough on naming conventions. A minor point which I was chased on earlier is that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) now recommends not linking dates unless they're particularly significant. I quite liked a lot of linked dates, but others feel they break up the flow too much, as emphasised in Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. Don't think it matters much in this article, though.. ...dave souza 19:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is an instruction on consistency but not a rule. "The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules". I consistently link year pages because I tend to use "what links here" to see what a year page is connected to. If the trend continues, year pages become isolated and loose their usefulness. User:Dimadick

Thalheim

Just for your information: There are about 20-30 Thalheims in Germany (including different spellings like Dalheim, Talheim). When you made the comment about Mother Meera,that Thalheim still is in West-Germany, I am sitting there right now. mizar 18:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If not Thalheim, Saxony then might you point out which Thalheim? User:Dimadick

Sure.Its Thalheim in Hessen, belonging to the Community 'Dornburg' Postal Code 65599 - mizar 20:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Regnant?

Sorry for deleting without consultation. Do you really want the word to appear in the text of William Stanley, or just form part of a link?--shtove 14:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A link is enough. Anything that can point out that Elizabeth was not one of several Tudor Queen consorts. Do not assume most readers get the difference at first glance. User:Dimadick

Sarah Siddons

Hi, I don't think we can really mark her out as a welsh actress unless we can show she or family regarded themselves as welsh (which I don't think they did). Thanks Arniep 18:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ever noticed her place of birth in Wales? User:Dimadick

Hi, many people may have been born in Wales at that time but did not consider themselves Welsh. Sarah's family AFAIK had no family connection to Wales and they were not permanantly resided there. Also, Wales has not been a separate state for an extremely long time. Arniep 18:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

18th century changes

Aren't the illustrations a little Eurocentric? --Brunnock 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. I wanted to use an illustration of the Qianlong Emperor of China and to mention expansion of Chinese control over Central Asia and Southeast Asia but had trouble with the captioning. Any ideas for replacing some of the images with ones more relevant to Asia or Africa? User:Dimadick

  • Most of my history books don't come with pictures. There's a new book called National Geographic's Visual History of the World which probably has pointers. --Brunnock 12:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

75px|left Hi Dimadick/Archive 1. I, SoothingR would like to commend you on your edits pertaining to the article Anthypolokhagos. Edits like that give Wikipedia the christmas spirit which we need so much. Especially today.

Thanks for your peaceful and useful contributions, and I wish you a merry christmas - and ofcourse - a happy new year.

Best wishes, SoothingR(pour) 17:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


Queen consort

Thanks for changing "queen" to "Queen consort" in my item on Maria Sofia of Naples. Nice touch that didn't occur to me. It's a good idea to note the change you make. At least I think it is. I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia and am still groping around. Happy New Year.Jeffmatt 07:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Roosevelt

Re your recent edits, I am told it is no longer Wikipedia policy to wikify individual dates. Adam 11:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Women

Yes my motives for removing the Women scholars category was mainly due to it not existing. I would not try to get it removed if it existed and was well stocked and I am certainly not going to bother trying to delete Category:Women root and branch; that would cause fun. MeltBanana 14:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Muscovites

Dima, please stop spamming unreferenced trivia to Romanov articles. What are the first-hand 16th-century sources claiming that Filaret or Mikhail Feodorvich were born in Moscow? If you want to do something helpful for Wikipedia, please check Template:Russia portal/Things you can do. Thanks, Ghirla | talk 10:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to be snippy

You – and the rest of the Wikipedia community and all its users besides – are lucky I translate these articles at all. If you see some little thing that needs doing, like a link to the SS officer category, just do it and don't complain. It's what I do. Kelisi 19:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you were not the only one and it took me several hours to place people from Category:German people to more specific categories. This being the third or fourth time I have attempted to clean up the category in less than a month.

I apologise if I offended you but German articles seem to suffer systematic neglect. And proper categorisation would actually make your own and any other articles easier to locate. User:Dimadick

Cool!

Thanks for the link to the 1950s Electro! I had no idea anyone else had ever heard of him. That was so neat to see! — Tenebrae 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Scots

Just noticed you added Minnie the Minx to Category:Fictional Scots. What's your source for this? I'm unaware of it ever being revealed that she's from Scotland. BillyH 10:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the character but the third paragraph starts: "Minnie is Scottish". User:Dimadick

Interesting. The paragraph was added by an anon in October 2005, but it originally stems from a forum post in April 2003. I've found no other references to her being Scottish other than Wikipedia mirrors, so I've removed the category and mention from the article. BillyH 11:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Dandy and Beano characters are all from Dundee in Scotland (their real-life 'birthplace', as the home of D C Thomson publications) unless proven otherwise. Minnie is regarded as Dundonian. She is immortalised in bronze, along with Desperate Dan, in a statue there. She has her catapult... Silverwhistle 14:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Your reverting of my link clearing

Hi, I noticed you recently reverted my link clearing at Storm (comics) and Rachel Summers. I figure they are not acceptable based on Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to, and also the fact that the Marvel Database link was spam, it was added by the site host to numerous pages across Wikipedia. The link I added in was per Wikipedia:External links#Maybe OK to add. Basically, it's acceptable to add one fan site, but with comics characters there are so many fan sites it is unfair to add merely one, and the guidelines then direct us to add a link to an open source directory instead. I'd appreciate your thoughts on a way forward on this, because although I don't want to edit war I believe my actions are grounded in policy, especially with regards the Marvel Database link. Hiding talk 19:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the links you removed where to more detailed profiles of the characters and could well serve as sources for future additions. I think what should be taken into account with this links is how useful the external link might be. If it only duplicates information already on the article then remove. I did not revert your changes in the articles on Invisible Woman and a hand full of other characters because I could not see anything substantial removed. User:Dimadick

  • There's consensus to remove Marvel Database and DC Database links added by the site host because it is spam. As to the rest, fair play. Hiding talk 20:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Palaeologus dynasty

I like very much what you have done with my articles about Byzantine despots of XV century. Can you please do that with my article about Theodore I Palaeologus which is in list for cleanup from december 2005. Thanks. rjecina

Succession Tables

Thanks for adding/cleaning up some of those. There's a problem with the one for Mary Cal Hollis, though, an extra line under Eric Chester, and I can't tell why that's appearing, maybe you would see what's doing it? Schizombie 15:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind the Hollis article, I fixed it - it was missing the "end box."Schizombie

Georg von Boeselager

I have requested a peer review for this article. It's not quite ready for feature status and I'm not thinking of nominating it soon, but I have encountered several problems that I need help with. You are the only other editor of the article so far, so I just wanted to let you know about the request and invite you to review it. My thanks for any contributions you can make. --Joe 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization practices

I see that you have been adding the misnamed category "Fictional Heroines" to a number of articles. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), it should be named "Fictional heroines", and is currently on the list for speedy renaming to the correct form. I am in the process of moving the existing 200 or so articles with the incorrectly-capitalized category, and I would appreciate your assistance in this move, or at least your cooperation in using Category:Fictional heroines instead. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not create the category but merely noticed it was underpopulated. Once the new category is created, I would be glad to move the articles. User:Dimadick

Thanks for finishing up the moves. After 150 or so of those things, my fingers just got tired! One problem I foresee: your commendable creation of the new category may interfere with my speedy-rename nomination, as there is now a category in place with a non-trivial edit history. But we can let the admins sort that out, I suppose. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Queen Consorts

Why are you adding succession boxes for them, given that the position is only intermittently filled? Choess 15:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We have similar succession tables for Princes of Wales and other "intermittently filled" titles. With the rule being to point at the closest predecessor or successor. The boxes do point at years or dates as to not cause confusion. Actually we already had succession tables for consorts but not those preceeding Prince George of Denmark User:Dimadick

Medieval women

I noticed you've been adding pages to Category:Medieval women. Are you primarily interested in categorizing, or are you an editor as well? I've started a (proposed) WikiProject about medieval women and I'd be very grateful if you wanted to help! Cantara 23:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I categorize by existing categories and make additions and corrections when I think they are needed. I have worked on many of these articles before with either signed or unsigned edits. I am just glad than somebody else has taken an interest in them and intends to improve them further. I will see what I can do to help. User:Dimadick

Constantine II of Greece

I have already explained twice why you can't just revert all my edits to this article. If you do so again I will report you. Adam 09:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do but only if you explain what have you been removing from the article. At this point I consider you worse than a vandal as regards to the quality of the article. User:Dimadick

Comnenus

Why reverted? I added a disambiguation for Maria Comnena, and unlinked isolated years, in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting What's your problem? Colonies Chris 09:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is not a rule but a suggestion. The suggestion you mentioned applies to overlinking and suggests linking to specific dates. But in long historical articles which list key events in history dates can not be too specific. That does not mean the articles should not link to year pages or that year pages should not be updated to reflect them. Comnenus had no overlinking in the first place. Probably just the opposite.

Do notice that years and dates of key events should always be listed. Notice that even the Manual specifies: "So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it". From what I could see you blindly removed all year pages and left them unlinked. User:Dimadick

I didn't remove dates or year pages, nor links to full dates that allow date preferences to operate. I only removed unhelpful links to isolated years. The MoS makes my point exactly. It says (my bolding) unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links.
And I can see no strong reason to link these isolated years - linking them doesn't add to the reader's understanding of the article. It's extremely unlikely that anyone will ever want to click on them. Similarly, I removed the low-value links to France, Germany etc, in accordance with Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, and your revert has reinstated those too. Colonies Chris 23:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"It's extremely unlikely that anyone will ever want to click on them." Judging from my personal experience, I usualy use those links to browse through our timelines and find the historical context of the events. I would assume others are also able to that while the links remain. Germany perhaps should be replaced by the Holy Roman Empire to fit the context. User:Dimadick

Cecily Neville

Nice work with the lady Cecily Neville, especially the list of her children - Skysmith 20:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Update on French Turn and Max Shachtman

I thought you might like appreciate a quick Update on French Turn and Max Shachtman; you've recently contributed there and you might have seen that a moderation was attempted on some disputed edits made by User:Jacrosse. he agreed to the moderation but did not take part in it. It agreed to delete some unsupported and referenced claims (basically, that Shachtman's current, far from fragementing and collapeing into cold-war social democarcym actually effected a Leninist takeover, both of US social democracy and then of US neo-conseratism. At this point Jacrosse is engaging in obvious acts of vandalism without even beginning to comment on the Talk pages. Perhaps Jacrosse will sit down to Talk, however it seems unlikely. Arbitration may be on the cards. If you can spare a little time over the next week or two, I would appreciate it if you could pop into Talk:French Turn or Talk:Max Shachtman. Your contribution has been very valuable and, of course, the danger is that all parties in this dispute get tangled up and lose our way towards improving the entries. Thanks for the help you've already given. --Duncan 17:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get your creator information?

Hi, I just noticed that you've added creator information to several of the articles I've updated lately. That's great, but where are you pulling the information from? Is there a good resource for this? Thanks --El benito 18:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For a listing of Marvel characters I use the "Master List Guide" of Jeff Christiansen, the creator of the "Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe". His listings include major and minor characters, some even ommited from the Marvel Chronology Project. They are pretty good in locating the first appearance of most characters. See: http://www.marvunapp.com/master/mastguid.htm

When I have the issue including the first appearance of the character and want to find or confirm the names of creators, I use the "Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators". The site attempts to list all magazines published by Marvel Comics since 1939, while listing the credits of their creators. See: http://www.maelmill-insi.de/UHBMCC/

For DC characters I use the "DC Chronology Project". Their Guide is a good starting point when searching for information on any given character. They are pretty useful in locating the first appearances of characters. Unfortunately they do not always list the name of creators but I can always search what information for this particular issue can be found after a google search. See: http://www.dcuguide.com/Who_Home.php

Another useful resource for DC history is the "DC Timeline". According to its owner "an attempt to list significant events in the history of DC Comics in as chronological order as possible. Most dates are the cover dates from the comics themselves." "Non-DC comics events listed are included because of their relevance to the history of DC Comics, not to their own companies." See: http://www.supermanartists.comics.org/dchistory/DCHISTORY-1.htm

A good resource for other American series characters is "Don Markstein's Toonopedia". Typically attempts to list both the first appearance and the credited creators of any featured character or series. Proceeds in giving a short introduction to them and their history. It isn't always accurate or updated and I have personally sent additional information and corrections to Don. But I know of no better resource for comics and animation from all genres. See: http://www.toonopedia.com/

For super-characters from arround the World, the "International Catalogue of Superheroes" is usely pretty good. Also lists first appearances and names of creators if known. See: http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/

As you can see I do not pull random names from my mind. But if there is an accuracy problem, please let me know. User:Dimadick

Doctor Strange

Just so I can update the footnote, or delete it entirely, do you know where the date of the 18th for Strange's birth comes from? Thanks! -- Tenebrae 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. I found it in a very detailed history of Strange that includes images from issues focusing in his use but does not bother to note which issues. See: http://www.drstrange.nl/

I also keed finding Internet profiles who mention his parents as "Eugene and Beverly Strange" who also fail to mention their sources.

A site on the Origins of Doctor Strange Mentions that the incident with the drowning of his sister and other events of his early life come from "Doctor Strange, Sorcerer Supreme #45". Perhaps this flashback issue was the source we are searching for? User:Dimadick

Isabel Plantagenet

Can you add sources for the content you posted at Isabel Plantagenet? I'll change my AfD vote to keep if this gets sourced.--Isotope23 16:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I used two Internet sources which I consider to be mostly reliable:

I am still not certain of the order of children but the "Dictionary of National Biography" on her husband mentions William to be the oldest son, Henry the second, Humfrey (sic) the third and John the fourth one. User:Dimadick

Edits to articles on Bulgarian and Byzantine history

Dear Dimadick, Thank you for adding links and other improvements to these contributions. But please cease altering the more accurate renditions of names in the body texts to the less accurate forms, even if they reflect the basic Wikipedia entry, especially as they are already linked up correctly. The current English standard for the rendering of Byzantine names is the ODB (Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford University Press, 1991). To use anything else is both antiquated and a step back in terms of the field. Accordingly, I have been writing names in agreement with the ODB standard and linking them up with the Latinizing listing in the database. There is no reason to alter the text when it does not present a problem in the link-up. If, on the other hand, you insist on Latinizing, at least make sure that the resulting text is consistent within the article and you edit all of the occurrences. I am concerned with both accuracy and consistency. Thank you, Imladjov 17:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am Greek and actually more familiar with the forms of the names you use for the Byzantines. But I am afraid most readers will be left scratching their heads if you use forms unfamiliar to them. And more often than not I try to link to the actual title of an article and avoid a redirect. You often forget to add "of Bulgaria" and other Wikipedia standards of naming.

Otherwise your efforts are great. If you have trouble with the name of an article you can always sign up and move it yourself or converse with anybody opposed to your move. User:Dimadick


Thanks for the response. I am a relatively new user, but I am pretty sure that writing Andronikos III Palaiologos for the Latin Andronicus III Palaeologus does not result in the creation of a redirect. And I make sure to link up the term to the actual Wikipedia entry. Personally I think the ODB standard does not go far enough, but at least it is a relatively consistent standard generally accepted by us Byzantinists. As for adding the country's name to a ruler's name, your point is well taken. I have, however, linked up to such a name as I found in a pre-existing Wikipedia entry precisely to avoid a problem in the linking. So if the entry I found was just "Ivailo", how do I know that writing the link as "Ivailo of Bulgaria" would work without complications? Similarly, all the Serbian rulers seem to be listed just under their names.

I am glad you generally approve, and I plan on expanding more articles on Byzantine and Balkan medieval rulers. Best, Imladjov 16:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In reference to your user page, if you look in the Oxford English Dictionary, you will discover a verb, 'born', the past participle of which is 'borned'. It has some meanings different from the passive form of 'bear' and some meanings which are similar. Its use by Faulkner suggests that it is a dialectal variant in the Southern United States, although it is found in such mainstream writers as Plath and in the Christian Science Monitor and Washington Post. 212.205.226.181 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Anna Leonowens

Please do not start a revert war. Comments on this page reflect your habit of reverting without notice or explanation. Opportunity was given for feedback before the edit, which you chose to disregard. If you do not like an edit, please post your objection on the Talk page or build upon the edit. — J M Rice 13:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the talk page does not reflect at all what your problem with the previous version was. You simply stated "POV" and then most of the article was lost. I have a habit to revert whatever article seems to be vandalised without explanation.

Please state what your grievances were. User:Dimadick

I have no grievances. Your assertion that my edits are vandalism is ridiculous. Also is your claim that I "simply stated POV". I stated the problems with the article and gave fair warning on the Talk page. I did more than that, and other users followed up with more details. I think you need to review Wikipedia policy and proper usage. You do not discuss reasons for edits in the Edit summary, as you have, but on the Talk page. I am restoring the edits. Please do not revert them again. Please be aware of the Three Revert Rule. I do not think you would like to be banned. &;mdash; J M Rice 20:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I would not mind if it got other editors interested in the article. Up till now Patiwat has explained his problems with the article and corrected it section by section. You on the other hand have removed all references to W.S. Bristowe and his research, all family history, the historical context and relations with the court and even the section about depictions in fiction. From what I can see the article suffers in quality under your version. User:Dimadick

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!


Thanks! --evrik 16:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 12:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have an interest in genealogy but never actually thought about it in social terms. On the other hands estimations of numbers of descedants can hardly be authoritative. But take into account the following:

1) Descedants of Sophia of Hanover who are not Roman Catholic or through illegitimate lines form the Line of succession to the British Throne. Which currently includes 907 individuals. I think the ommited Roman Catholic and/or illegitimated descedants likely add several hundred individuals to that list.

2) Her mother Elizabeth of Bohemia was also mother to Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine, Elisabeth of Bohemia, Princess Palatine, Prince Rupert of the Rhine, Edward, Count Palatine of Simmern and a couple of lesser figures. These

These children have had a large number of descedants of their own. For example Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine was father to Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine. Her son Philippe II, Duke of Orléans is ancestral to all later members of the House of Orleans. Her daughter Elizabeth Charlotte of Orleans was mother to Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor and ancestral to all later members of the Habsburg-Lorraine line.

3) Elizabeth of Bohemia was a daughter of James I of England/James VI of Scotland. His other children include Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, Charles I of England, Robert Stuart, Duke of Kintyre.

Charles I of England has had several descedants of his own. He was father to (among others) Charles II of England, James II of England and Henrietta Anne Stuart. Our article on Charles II alone mentions 26 illegitimate children of whom several had further descedants.

4) I think James I/VI has had thousands of descedants to this day. Which all descent from his mother Mary I of Scotland and maternal grandfather James V of Scotland.

James V was also father to "seven known illegitimate children". The most notable of them was James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray. His daughter and successor Elizabeth Stuart, 2nd Countess of Moray was ancestor to twenty more Earls of Moray to this day.

These line of Earls of Moray have had descentants among several aristocratic families of Great Britain. For example James Stewart, 4th Earl of Moray was the maternal grandfather to Archibald Campbell, 1st Duke of Argyll.

5) James V of Scotland was a son of Margaret Tudor. Margaret was also mother to Margaret Douglas. The same Margaret Douglas who was mother to Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley and Charles Stuart, 1st Earl of Lennox.

6) Margaret Tudor was the eldest daughter of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York. Her siblings included Arthur, Prince of Wales, Henry VIII of England, Elizabeth Tudor, Mary Tudor (queen consort of France), Edmund Tudor, Duke of Somerset and Katherine Tudor.

Henry VIII was father of Mary I of England, Elizabeth I of England, Edward VI of England and Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset who are all known to have died childless. But Henry was also the alleged father of Catherine Carey, Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon, Thomas Stukley, John Perrot who are all known to have had children.

Mary Tudor was mother of Henry Brandon, 1st Earl of Lincoln, Lady Frances Brandon and Lady Eleanor Brandon. Most people remember Frances as the mother of Lady Jane Grey, Lady Catherine Grey and Lady Mary Grey. What they might not remember is that Catherine Grey was mother of Edward Seymour, Baron Beauchamp of Hache and grandmother of William Seymour, 2nd Duke of Somerset. Which means all later Dukes of Somerset and their various descedants claim descent from Mary Tudor.

Eleanor Brandon has also had her fair share of descedants. Her daughter Lady Margaret Clifford was mother of Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby. Her descedants include all Earls of Derby until 1736. The 7th Earl was maternal grandfather to John Murray, 1st Duke of Atholl and ancestor to all Dukes of Atholl to this day.

Henry VII is unlikely to run out of descedants at this point.

7) Elizabeth of York was the eldest daughter of Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville. Her most notable siblings were arguably Edward V of England, Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York and her illegitimate half-brother Arthur Plantagenet, 1st Viscount Lisle.

However often overlooked is her younger sister Catherine of York (August 14, 1479 – November 15, 1527). She was wife of William Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon, mother of Henry Courtenay, 1st Marquess of Exeter and grandmother of Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon (1553 creation)].

Catherine was also mother to Margaret Courtenay. Margaret was the first wife of Henry Somerset, 2nd Earl of Worcester. Several modern genealogies are less than certain that his second wife Elizabeth Browne was mother to all his children. Catherine is thus considered likely to have further descedants among the Somersets

As with all English aristocrats of their day and age the firstborn male of the family would inherite the peerage and the main lands of the family. Younger sons would often receive minor titles and holdings and their descedants would be rather obscure. Daughters would marry into whatever family seemed suitable for an alliance and female-line descedants would not necessarilly claim high rank from their otherwise illustrius ancestry.

I would consider it likely Edward IV and Henry VII have had descedants of all sorts of social classes and of varying cultural backgrounds. User:Dimadick

Alright then, it's just that what I've seen for all records of American Presidents in their own time...is that they were not descended from either monarch or any future UK-type royals. Would the descent of James Stuart be a lot harder to find in commoners? There is a big difference between the Catholic English and Protestant British royal descent, or is there not? If one had the latter, they would still have connections in the peerage and present aristocracy--as opposed to the old feudal order. Am I right? I can find so many feudal royals in my genealogy, but the new mercantiles and their Renaissance or parliamentary preferences in the monarchy are totally lacking in my research. It was my assumption that in my case, this means I am low-born or of lower status as compared to the new aristocrats. Then again, Henry Tudor and all his descent were the new era of low royalty and associations--so I feel on par with them in a way. IP Address 15:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretenders Ernst August

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ernest Aug. and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; what are the correct ordinals anyway; and Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 00:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Agnes of France

Am I right in thinking that the extended article on Agnes of France is your work? Thank you very much, if so, for all that useful information. You won't mind if I add a detail or a footnote here and there? I have some material handy in my notes I think.

Would it be better if there were a page for each Agnes of France, with disambiguation? Andrew Dalby 08:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I created the article but that doesn't mean I own it. If you could add further details, please do. User:Dimadick

Noting your revision to Alys, Countess of the Vexin: the statement that Agnes of France was married to Alexius II Comnenus is becoming ever more widespread in Wikipedia, but I haven't found any Byzantine source that describes her as his wife; nor is she called Empress until 1183 (when she married Andronicus). Most historians in print describe what happened in 1180 as a betrothal, not a marriage: she was definitely too young for canonical marriage, and so was he, according to some. So, are you sure? Andrew Dalby 15:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that we don't have many clues of the life of Alexius II during his own reign either. Most Greek historians assume Andronicus married the already reigning empress to stabilize his position in the throne. The Orthodox Church does not have bethrothal ceremonies presided by priests and certainly not Archbishops. Either that ceremony was invented for that case alone or this is a marriage. User:Dimadick

Well, maybe. But was Eustathios presiding or was he just making a speech (as he did at her arrival, the previous year)? I have his speech as entitled Oration on the public celebrations of the betrothal of the two royal children but I don't have access to the Greek title right now.

Andrew Dalby 15:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers

Hi. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. Maybe you are interested in.--Panairjdde 17:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian and Hellenistic

We both seem to be interested in promoting accuracy in the face of the recent attempts by Greek partisans. Hopefully we can come to agreement.

You'll note that I've recently removed Category:Ancient Macedon (likewise Macedonians) from under Category:Ancient Greece (etc.), and promoted all to the same level of Category:Classical studies. I was taught that Ancient Greece ends with Alexander's conquest, and is henceforth called Hellenistic civilization.

Likewise, with Alexander's death, the warring factions certainly cannot be termed "Macedonian", as only one of the factions is actually in Macedon. And while there was later inter-marriage, after the first generation the royalty didn't call themselves Macedonian (especially since their mothers were often regionally native royalty themselves).

While it is true that Category:Ancient Rome is also "ancient", and the middle ages begin with the fall of the Roman Empire, each is merely one of the ancient empires. They don't all exist in parallel.

--William Allen Simpson 12:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (watching here for reply)

You equate "Ancient Greece" with Classical Greece which is pretty much what ended with Alexander the Great. The Hellenistic civilization is just another historical period of antiquity lasting from 323 BC to 30 BC. It is by no mean the end of Ancient History and you will find most Macedonians mentioned in written sources active in this period.

I find it strange that "royals did not call themselves Macedonians". The article on Diadochi makes it clear that all kept the pretense of a unified Empire until 306 BC/305 BC when the hand-full of Satraps able to rule with a sense of autonomy all declared themselves to be Basileus. Their individual articles make clear that all six of them were Macedonians by both birth and origin. Thyey were all active alongside Alexander and long after his death. How does his death rob them of their own cultural identity?

The Macedonian nature of Hellenistic civilization can not be overstated. All the major dynasties could claim descent from either the Macedonian aristocracy or the army of Alexander. At this point the original Macedon was only one among several Macedonian (ethnicity) kingdoms. The equivalent of a British Empire dissolving not to the Commonwealth of Nations but to at least 53 independant Kingdoms all claiming to be the heirs of British culture.

The Roman period is just the final era of antiquity. Not a parallel of anything but the direct successor of the Hellenistic era. The original method of dividing European history in Ancient history, Middle Ages and Renaissance had excactly this in mind. User:Dimadick

Quote from Dimadick above: 'I find it strange that "royals did not call themselves Macedonians"' after the first generation. I agree; I find it strange too. I would love to find a counter-example. But I haven't as yet! Andrew Dalby 16:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That's correct, the "unified Empire" (despite several wars) lasted about 20 years. I've yet to see any reference where the 3rd, 4th, ... 14th generation royalty call themselves "Macedonian". We're talking circa 200 years. What's your source? (Of course, folks around here don't divide history into 3 simple parts.)
--William Allen Simpson 09:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

blocked

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for waging multiple edit wars across multiple articles with another user running for days.

You are welcome to return and contribute to Wikipedia after the block expires. However if you again vandalise us you may be subject to a longer block.

To contest this block please place {{unblock}} below and explain why you feel you should be unblocked.

I reference specific articles on Haplogroup T (mtDNA) and Haplogroup H (mtDNA) which use the well known book The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes. The same Sykes who contacted research on the remains of the Romanovs in 1991. Tasc does not state any sources on his rejection of the addittion.

I incorporate text in the articles which was created by User:Saforrest back in February and has since been inserted to any number of articles on matrilinear relatives of both Nicholas II of Russia and Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse but was glaringly missing on the articles on the two main individuals.

I have tried to adress the matter in User talk:Tasc five days ago but other than some vague comment on it being "poorly written" he has really not made clear why he/she reacts so to the mere mention of a Genetics section in the article.

Examples of articles which do include the section and Tasc has never complained about include among others:

Anne de Foix.

As far as I can see it has not diminished the worth of these articles but has made them better linked to one another. I could care less if I am personally banned but I would like to see these articles stay in good shape and not suffer in quality due to the likes of Tasc. User:Dimadick

He also has been blocked. Feel free to add in a {{unblock}} message and another admin will review the situation. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers Follow Up

Greetings. As a recent contributor to the survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI, you may be interested in the following. A mediation sought by Panairjdde resulted in the recommendation that "that proposal two from this page be implemented in the short term, until a consensus can be reached about proposal three". Accordingly, before resuming the editorial process, I am seeking feedback on whether option 2 or 3 of the former survey is more acceptable. Please state (or re-state) your opinion in the follow up survey on Talk:Constantine XI. Thank you for your time, Imladjov 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Genetics section

Stop it. Is it not enough for you to be blocked once? -- tasc talkdeeds 11:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

See above on my arguments on the bloc. As far as I care you are the one who has not mentioned a single source for his/her arguments. User:Dimadick

About the genetics debate

Thanks for letting me know. Myself, despite having added the genetics information initially, I am not firmly convinced it should be there for all the nobles concerned (e.g. obscure nobles like Sophia Frederica of Mecklenburg-Schwerin). I could see a case that inclusion of genetic data, unless sourced to an external reference, breaches the "no original research" rule.

However, it is beyond question that it must be included for Nicholas II and I've said that to Tasc. It seems sanest to me to start with the least contentious cases like the Czar and proceed outwards from there. --Saforrest 17:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Some edits in Byzantine articles

Hi. Thanks for further improving these articles. While I understand your desire to reflect the actual article names of cross-referenced articles, please note that sometimes they have to be changed when integrated in the article text. For example, "Regent" cannot appear capitalized in the middle of a sentence unless it is a title followed by the name of the regent. I have also noticed some citations of rulers that are problematic. For example, "Emperor John III Doukas Vatatzes of the Empire of Nicaea" is redunadant and not very good English. A normal sentence would say "Emperor John III Doukas Vatatzes of Nicaea" or "the Emperor of Nicaea, John III Doukas Vatatzes", or "John III Doukas Vatatzes, the Emperor of Nicaea"... The basic formula "X of Y" is not always applicable within the sentence, especially in cases like "Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor". Piped links exist precisely to make possible the normal flow of the language. This is also true in the cases like "Michael I Komnenos Doukas of the Despotate of Epirus". Since Michael was not a despotes and a "despotate" is something of a misnomer anyway, this really ought to read "Michael I Komnenos Doukas of Epirus". I do not mean to pontificate, but please take this into consideration when editing. Thanks, Imladjov 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Duff

Hi, why do you think his title of a Earl of Fife was vacant before him ? It was a new creation for him in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, not of Scotland like the Stewart-Creation. Greetings --Phoe 19:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the article Earl of Fife indicates this is a new creation of the same title after 460 years rather than a competely unrelated one which happens to share the same name. User:Dimadick

Ah ... I know the problem. I translated "vacant" incorrectly. In German the word "vakant" means unsure, vague or uncertain. Sorry --Phoe 19:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agnes of France

I've just discovered that the new (21 May 2006) expanded version of Agnes of France (on which I had begun a little editing to damp down the wilder flights of fancy and indicate alternative interpretations, and you have also been working) is actually lifted wholesale from the signed and copyrighted page at [1]. I wish the anonymous contributor, or cut-and-paster, had admitted this ... I will now try to revert the article to an unplagiarised state, while not losing the work we have put into it. OK? Andrew Dalby 14:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Royal genetics

Hi, I just noticed this genetics debate. I'm not quite sure what the reasoning is for including genetic information which seems to be likely to be the same for millions of people, with really no significant relevance for their lives? It seems so far that it just happens that royalty, being famous, happen to have been tested, but it has no other significance. Sandpiper 09:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the significance is that testing on royalty and their specific descedants happened earlier (early 1990s) and helped determine current classification in haplogroups. Plus royalty have left us with the only available geneological charts which do not end after a couple of generations and allow as to trace how a specific haplogroup spread through several royal houses across and beyond the European continent. User:Dimadick

Then surely that means the royalty should be mentioned under genetics, rather than that gentics should be mentioned under royalty? I fancy there could also be statistical evidence from mass sampling, but perhaps that has not happened much yet? But I would have thought that royalty would be an absolutely lousy example of how something spread since their movements and marriages are very much not the same as the majority of the population. By action of chance the spread through royal lines could be centuries ahead or behind the general population. Sandpiper 12:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Stylistic choices

Stop adultering my work with abundance of German names. Maed 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are the current names of their articles. Your list as it stands uses many redirects and several obscure designations. User:Dimadick

Such names may be slightly wrong. That's one reason for why we have the possibility of piping. And redirects. The formulation of the text (including names) in one article depends on the context in that article, not what happens to be its name presently. You are possibly causing much unnecessary work for the future. Cease such useless changes. Maed 12:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Cease creating forks

Do not make cut-and-paste moves of articles. It is against Wikipedia policy. Maed 12:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not make a cut and paste move. I created the article and then discovered an unlinked duplicate. I compared the information and found I had already included it. User:Dimadick

Older article remains, it is customary here. If you are unhappy with the name, go and make a proposition for its move. Do not (repeatedly) make the fork active. Maed 12:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles should not be created simpåly because such person is part of some genealogy

I should request the deletion of Marie Valois. Totally unnecessary article. Do not create useless ones. Read what is notability. Maed 12:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not create it. She was one of the persons listed in your article Byzantine descent of Danish royals of Greece and I discovered we already had an article about her. The article was created by User:Iwalters on May 27 as it says in the edit history. Please check it before making accussations.

If you want the article deleted go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and make a nomination. I can not delete it myself. User:Dimadick

Use English

It seems that you do not know enough of medieval rulers, languages, nor of our Use English policy here in Wikipedia. I refer now particularly to the stupidity you did at name of William, Duke of Julich etc. Please undertand that he was Low-German, and that spelling had anyway not developed to current formulations back then. Maed 13:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already answered you at its talk page. He is mentioned as "Wilhelm" in several other pages which you did not bother to "correct". User:Dimadick

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on June 16, 2006 (UTC) to Queen Anna of Hungary

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, but did you happen to notice why I did the reversions?

No... which is why all the below is quite beside the point. I blocked you for reverting, thats all William M. Connolley 11:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying the naming conventions matter nothing to you? I am not arguing about your banning me or not. I am arguing about the content of the article. User:Dimadick

I wanted to create an article about Anne of Bohemia since we already had one for her consort and several about children and son-in-laws. I checked out before hand that there was not already one linked from any of those of articles but the title article was reserved for Anne of Bohemia. So I added Jagellonian for disambiguation purposes and created Anne Jagellion of Bohemia.

After working on the article, creating links for all relative articles that came to mind and added or expanded the children lists to the articles on her children and son-in-laws I discovered his so-called Queen Anna of Hungary. It was created on June 9 but was not linked from any other Habsburg article, not categorised in any way and had a particularly obscure name. Thus practically invisible.

As for my arguments on the name.

  • Point 1: She was not an undisputed Queen consort of the Kingdom of Hungary. The throne of Hungary was in dispute between her husband Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor and John Zápolya from 1526 to 1540, between Ferdinand I and John II Sigismund Zápolya from 1540 to 1564 and finally between her son Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor and John II from 1564 to 1571.
  • Point 2:Anne was daughter, sister and wife to undisputed Kings of Bohemia and was mentioned as "Anne of Bohemia" in the articles about her children for quite a long time.
  • Point 3:There is precedent of calling her "Anne of Bohemia" in geneological sites around the Internet that I am familiar with. See for example a [RootWeb's World Connect Project profile of her.
  • Point 4:His proposed article name is against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). I am quoting:
    • "Deceased Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine." Which means Queen shouldn't even be in the title.
    • "Existing Royal Consorts are referred to by their consort name, eg. Queen Sofia of Spain. But when she dies, she will revert to her pre-marital title, ie, Sofia of Greece. As widow, some appropriate addition (usually announced by the country in question) will be amended to (such as Queen Dowager or Queen Mother), with the new Queen of Spain being referred to by the consort designation. The same rule applies to male royal consorts." Which means the article currently has the style of a LIVING Queen consort, not a deceased one. Anne died in 1547.

On the reverts themselves then. I compared the two articles and found his version to have no additional information which I could add to my own. Per Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages

  • "There are several good reasons to merge a page":
    • "There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject." Which is all the reasons a merge needs.
  • "Merging should always leave a redirect in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from. Even if it seems rather pointless or obscure, leave it in place. Superfluous redirects don't harm anything, and are sometimes helpful. Other websites may have made links to the old page title, so we'll want to redirect incoming visitors to the merged page. We don't want people accidentally creating a new page under the old title, not knowing that the merged page exists. Redirects also show up in search results, helping people who might be looking under the "wrong" title to find the page that they are looking for."

I do consider his article under that name to be both pointless and obscure but since the contents were already present in my version I turned it into a redirect. Keeping in mind it was unlikely to be used much.

  • "You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page. That's fine; you can feel free to delete the redundant information and only add the new stuff. If there's no information to be added to the destination page, you can note in your edit summary on the source page (as you are turning it into a redirect) that there was nothing to be merged (or that the source page was entirely redundant with the destination)." Since there was nothing to be merged I only noted the redirect. The information as currently stands is partly redundant and partly contradictory in the matter of list of children. He insists however on reverting to his older version and proposing a "merge". Reverting the actual merge in the process!

I am guessing he/she has no clear understanding what a merge is. He has made his own attempt at one in the horribly-named Queen Anna of Hungary. Keeping both versions in the same article with no seeming intent to remove duplicated information! By the way I do not pretend to be a master of English literary phrasing but I think we can do better that the versing in his version. Quotting what most struck me: "They had a bunch of children"!

"Please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future". I alreadyn have both above and in the explanation of my every revert. See the history of the two articles. And I don't particurarly see Maed offering reasonable arguments either. :

  • I am quotting Maed from above: "It seems that you do not know enough of medieval rulers, languages, nor of our Use English policy here in Wikipedia." "Totally unnecessary article. Do not create useless ones."
  • Also the following seems to be his opinion on the current names of other biographic articles. "Stop adultering my work with abundance of German names." "Such names may be slightly wrong. That's one reason for why we have the possibility of piping. And redirects." Changes in the main article are not reflected in the redirect and remain invisible to Related changes feature. User:Dimadick

Your request

I looked through some of the convoluted edit history of the Anne article you referred to. Actually reverts of a redirect and a merge request. Seems a messy situation, I am not sure if I grasp all what happened. However, one of the things I have learned here is that no one should create another article about a person, but to work in the earliest article of the same. (I think that because you created the new page just yesterday, it would be not too much bother to you to take all contents you wrote, and put them to the older page - then, what's left for dissatisfaction of your opponent?). I would not want to judge any of the reverts made in the obvious revert war yesterday. Hope I do not need to. Revert warring is a bad thing. Did it improve either of the articles? Of course not. It just consumed your time, time you could have used in more constructive pursuits. If you are unhappy with a name of an older article, just open a move request. If majority of others find a better name better, it will be moved, which is the right procedure. I assume you want to make content to articles, not to revert-war upon possibly a redirect. Hope you find more pleasant issues to write about. Happy working :) Shilkanni 14:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See above on why excactly I can not move content to his page. The article name of his is against the current naming convention. And the earliest article is supposed to be traceable and linked from the relative articles and categories. He did not bother to enter either links or categories to it. Which again I consider invible. Event a search for "Anne of Hungary" points to no article at this moment. User:Dimadick

Agnes of France (Byzantine empress)

I mention this because I think you originally wrote this page and have been editing it. I have added to the talk page Talk:Agnes of France (Byzantine empress) a template, as you'll see if you follow the link, meaning that I'm keeping an eye on the page. (I happened to see this in use on another page I watch, and I'm wondering whether it will turn out a good idea or not.) Obviously I don't mean to claim anything exclusive, and it is (I believe) possible for other users such as you to put additional names in this template if you want to. Please feel free to comment! Andrew Dalby 14:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see anything exclusive implied by your template. By all means improve the article if you can. User:Dimadick

Eliminating redirects is not an unmitigated good

Substituting Kephalonia for Cephalonia is OK, I suppose, but literature dealing with the period seems generally to refer to Zakynthos as Zante, and "Gortyna, Arcadia" has absolutely no meaning in that period of history: the barony was referred to either as Karytaina or Skorta. Could I ask you to be somewhat more judicious when making such substitutions? Choess 06:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Zante is somewhat archaic and currently in use only in Karagiozis plays because Sior Dionysius proudly proclaims his origin everytime. Only when I followed the redirect did I find out this obscure "Skorta" was the famous Karytaina, one of the first communities to join the Greek War of Independence and responsible for early battles in the Peloponnese. Put it up to Greek bias. Restore your names of choice but please have them point to the main articles. User:Dimadick

OK, works for me. Thank you for the other cleanup and disambiguation. Best, Choess 07:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Genetics in royal articles

There is no support for the inclusion of the genetics information in any of the royal articles that you insist on adding. They have now all been removed, and please don't add them back. Astrotrain 19:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I insist of finding well-connected articles and more than the standard biographic information. Remember that I am a readers as much as a writer of articles. Your version of the articles does not offer anything particularly interesting about them. User:Dimadick

Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty

Hi. There is another move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you might be interested in it. Imladjov 21:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Creticus??

I made an edit I'm not sure about. Was Creticus that last name of these people in the Marc Antony line or not? It struck me as wrong, but then I saw the name a few other places. You seem like the expert. See Talk:Lucius_Antonius_(grandson_of_Mark_Antony). If it's a valid full name, should it be the title of the article? -- Kendrick7 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Creticus served as an addition to the name of his great-grandfather. In a similar situation the grandson of Scipio Africanus was Scipio Aemilianus Africanus and I am certain that descedants of Lucius Cornelius Sulla also addopted the name "Felix" (Lucky). However those were not names applied to all descedants. I would like to see the sources pointing to Lucius using that name. User:Dimadick

French Queens

Thank you for changing the link in the French Queen Consort succession box from List of French monarchs to List of Queens and Empresses of France: it must have been incredibly tedious, and it was very useful. Thanks! Michaelsanders 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who had added the Links to the List of French monarchs in the first place, quite some time ago. But then List of Queens and Empresses of France had not existed yet. Good work at creating it. User:Dimadick

I wish I could say I did; however, that was created by RandomCritic (who I have to say did a good job at it). I merely fiddled around with it when his hard work was done. Unfortunately, my only major role here has been to give you more work: I was the one who added the succession boxes for those Queens prior to Blanche of Evreux, and who created the articles for those Queens without - all of which, of course, linked to the monarch list rather than the Queen list (though that didn't exist at that time either). Michaelsanders 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Queen of Olga of Greece

Hi! You recently added some information to Olga Konstantinovna of Russia about the bible translation. Would you mind returning to the page and providing a reference? Thanks. DrKiernan 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

General knowledge actually. I got this summary after comparing several Greek encyclopedic articles on the event. User:Dimadick

Category:Capitals_in_Europe

Your comment here is a bit contradictory to the nomination. I am proposing the political definition of Europe over the geographic one which is inline with your comment and not your vote. Just trying to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding. --Cat out 16:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am simply considering that when we say "Europe" we also consider areas of Cyprus, Russia and Turkey, if not Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia because they are considered European countries. Your renaming offers a purely geographic definition of Europe which I think is uncommon. User:Dimadick

No, Cyprus is a "European country" (my proposal, political borders (country is political borders)), it is not in Europe (current name, geographic). --Cat out 12:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Adelaide of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

Sorry about the "No-context" tag, I guess I didn't look over the article enough. See my comments on the talk pageDanski14 05:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Royal Descent

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me because you were a big help with the article. The editor that has been helping up keeps editing out and deleting sentences. They claim before the 16th century royal families did not inbreed, meaning they did not marry their cousins. I am a little concerned this article might start an edit war because discussing it with them is not working. Could you help? Thanks! RosePlantagenet 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Constantine II of Greece

Hello, Dimadick. I've reversed you edit in the Infobox (concerning Constantine II's reign). I've put his reign as ending December 13, 1974. I've done so, to make the Infobox match the opening paragraph of the article. GoodDay 18:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

{{WPGreece}}

Thank you for adding the project template in articles within the scope of the WP:Greece project. But it would be better if you added {{WPGreece}} instead of {{WPHOG}}. The banner's name has changed, and there is no reason to have redirects. Once again, thanks a lot for your efforts!--Yannismarou 11:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, did not notice they were redirected. I just noticed the list of "Greek articles" needed several additions. I hope the articles may receive a bit more attention now.

By the way should the list include figures known for activities in Greek areas like Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin? User:Dimadick

Kingdom of Valencia

Hi. Thanks a lot for the cleaning you made in this article. I translated it and, as you have realized already by my redaction there, I am no native English speaker and the action of someone like you was much needed. It looks so much better now. I think I am going to reduce a bit the linking, though. I am not particularly fond of linking dates such as 1237. I will also change "distant" to "close" regarding the relationship between Aragonese and Castilian langauge, that's all.

Thanks again and do not hesitate to come back there often. Mountolive | Talk 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Skopelos

Thanks Dimadick for your current contributions to the Skopelos article. The page has a lot of good information but is beginning to be ungainly and probably needs structural editing. What do you think?Skopelos-Slim 08:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is just starting to evolve from a near-stub to a proper article, thanks to your efforts. I don't think its realy ungainly yet but the sections on Government and settlements should be higher in the text. Currently they look too short to ne useful though. Do you know any particular work covering them in more detail? User:Dimadick

Thanks again for your input. The settlements bits have evolved from the article being a travelogue to attempts at providing more encyclopedic and neutral info , ie. they are place names and are some might be seen as important now because they might have a combination of a beach or a hotel or rooms to rent. It might be better to call them "areas" . Interestingly the wikiarticle cited under Communities states that among other criteria a community must have a population 1500 or more to be considered legally a community. Neither Glossa nor Neo Klima have 1500 people. The page awaits the visit of an expert in how the government of Greece works.

The only text I know of is referenced on the page. "Skopelos -A guide to the Island" by Vassilis Tomanas 1993. This is out of print and has never been updated. I intend to add a suggested reading section for there are other books dealing with the architecture of the island and some personal history texts that I am aware of.

I'm also looking for geological info for the area if you have any ideas.Skopelos-Slim 09:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a link at the Communities and Municipalities of Greece article... http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/UNPAN000205.pdf It might help. Skopelos-Slim 11:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Women writers

I just (finally) submitted the category for review for reinstatement. Fingers crossed. scribblingwoman 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WPFC banner

Thanks for adding the {{WPFC}} banner to so many articles. As you have not yet done so, I invite you to join WP:WPFC, where I am trying to start an assessment drive for the many unassessed articles that we now have (see talk).

Just one request: If an article is already tagged with the WP Prussia banner, please do not add the WPFC banner. Since WP Prussia is a child project of WPFC, it is not necessary to tag articles which are already tagged with the Prussian banner - although the same assessment rules should hold. Thanks. - 52 Pickup 11:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of months ago I came uppon this interesting project on former state entities but was dissappointed that many articles were omitted. So I add them in hopes of gaining some attention for them. I had not noticed WP Prussia was a sub-project until checking your recent edits and finding mention of it there. Thanks for the invitation. User:Dimadick

The Prussian project could effectively be a task-force of WPFC (similar to the HRE taskforce), but I use that project for testing many things that I later implement in WPFC, so I like to keep them a little bit separate. Maybe later on I will change that. It is true that there are many articles which either don't exist or are very hard to find. That's a main reason why I got WPFC up and running. Compared to many other projects, we don't have a lot of people involved so activity is pretty slow, so we need all the people we can get (and there's a helluva lota work to do). The new assessment policy that I have just started up should (hopefully) help in concentrating efforts to increase awareness of these articles and to eventually improve them. The Project pages themselves are perhaps a little out of date (i don't maintain them all that often anymore), so if you've got any ideas for how to give the project a bit more momentum, I'd love to hear them.
Oh, and welcome to WPFC! - 52 Pickup 12:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dimadick. Dalmatia is not an country, but a region. So, I've removed the WPFC mark. Kubura 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was listing the provinces of the Roman Empire and that was one of them. User:Dimadick

Perhaps I should modify the WPFC banner to make it clear that the project deals with any type of former territory, including its subdivisions. Regarding my above comments about using the WPFC banner on the Prussian pages, you can now disregard that. I have just modified the WPFC banner to handle WP Prussia articles. So where the WP Prussia article exists, it can now be replaced with the WPFC banner with the extra field |Prussia=yes. - 52 Pickup 15:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celine Dion awards and accomplishments

As you've contributed to this discussion, I thought you should know that a number of similar articles have been bundled with the AfD. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Henrietta Anne Stuart

Hello Dimadick:
We are having a bit of a discussion about the proper title for this article: Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans, Henrietta Anne Stuart, Henrietta Anne of England or whatever; see Talk:Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans. I would appreciate your input on this issue. JdH 02:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WPCYP

If it's not too much to ask, do you think you can assess the Cyprus-related articles you tag with {{WPCYP}}? Which means adding a class and importance value. It would made the entire project better off. Now I have to go back and assess those myself. El Greco (talk • contribs) 01:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WPFC

Hi there! I noticed that you marked Southwestern Krai, Northwestern Krai, and Western Krai with the {{WPFC}} template. Neither of these entities was ever a country; they were only subdivisions. From what I understand, WPFC only covers whole countries, not subdivisions. I suggest removing the templates from these three pages, unless I'm missing something else. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The WPFC does cover subdivisions and actualy most subdivisions of the Russian Empire had already been added. We had somehow missed this three. User:Dimadick

In such case you might want to clarify this on the project page, as it was not immediately obvious to me when I glanced over it. Thanks for the explanation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Mickey Mouse

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mickey Mouse, by MBFMETAL (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mickey Mouse seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mickey Mouse, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Kongo Kings

Just wanted to say good work and thanks for your addition of the succession list to the individual kings of Kongo. They've been needing a succession table for a while (among other things). Just spreadin some wikiLove. HollaScott Free 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

Hey there. I have noticed that you have editted some of the articles that I was working on. I thank you for your contributions - I am much appreciative of them.

Tourskin 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your own effort in placing a spotlight on some underappreciated aspects of Byzantine history. Good work. User:Dimadick

Hey there. I am gonna be making some serious changes to User:Tourskin/Decline of Byzantium 1180-1204 by making it shorter. I wish to make a summary for the Byzantine Empire page since its too detailed.
If you wish to continue improving the content, please do so at Byzantium under the Angeloi, where a higher amount of detail is more than welcome. Thank you again. Tourskin 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 12:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WPMA

Hi. Did you mean to add the {{WPMA}} banner to the talkpgs of Moctezuma I‎ and Aztec warfare? Don't really see there's any connection with the Middle Ages, either in geographical or periodisation terms. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am actually adding to the project articles already included in Category:Medieval Warfare which at this point attempts to include warfare from the 5th century to the 15th century throughout the world. User:Dimadick

OIC, thx for explanation. That'd be a pretty wide-ranging scope to chew on, tho' I suppose that project can work out for itself whether or not their bounds will extend that far. Thx, --cjllw ʘ TALK 10:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bosel

Thanks for the quick merge! I hate doing merges, so I greatly appreciate someone doing them. Thanks again! Ealdgyth | Talk 14:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate doing merges between articles covering the same subject but with very different tones and material. Somethink always has to go. On the other hand mergers of stubs rarely pose trouble. Dimadick 07:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Adelheid of Brunswick

A tag has been placed on Adelheid of Brunswick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jons63 (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Adelheid of Brunswick

A tag has been placed on Adelheid of Brunswick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jons63 (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Settlements by year of establishment

Hi - I notice that you've been creating pages in the Category:Settlements by year of establishment category set. Please have a look at Category_talk:Settlements_by_year_of_establishment#Cut-off_dates and feel free to propose changes to the agreed cut off dates there. You might also want to look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_15#Settlements_established_before_1500 and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_3#Category:Settlements_established_in_12_BC. As you will see, it is my view that creating pages such as Category:Settlements established in 744 leads to cats containing only one or two articles on average and lots of gaps for those years when history has not recorded that any settlements were established. It's my intention to take the categories that fall outside the current agreed cut-off dates to WP:CFD. Thanks. Greenshed (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I did create them, while searching for articles appropriate for Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages. The upmergings with "establishments" had left a mess in the parent categories. You could hardly distinguish which dealt with settlements and which with monasteries or even states.

I also noticed the criterion "Prior to 1500, where greater dating accuracy exists, articles should also be placed in the appropriate Establishments by year category." So I only did for articles reporting the year or ,better yet, the date of foundation.

As for number of articles included per category, take a look on some post-1500 categories. "Category:Settlements established in 1600" contains only one article. "Category:Settlements established in 1604" two of them. Should they also be deleted for being scarcely populated? What exactly makes 8th century categories invalid and 17th centuries valid ones when they contain the same number of articles? Dimadick (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates

So let's remove that qualifier. I do not see the purpose of having a non-inclusive list, as it implies this sort of "third tier" candidacy is not valid or that it does not need to be included in an encyclopedic accounting, neither of which is true. • Freechild'sup? 15:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)