User talk:Emperor001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Emperor001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- zzuuzz^(talk) 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Hello, I noticed your request for help on your userpage. You will usually get a better response by asking on your talk page (here) with the use of a {{helpme}} tag, or just ask a Wikipedian such as me directly (there is also the help desk). Regarding pictures, we are quite careful about copyright, and pictures like screenshots are usually used under fair use provisions, which means they can't be used on userpages. However there may be some free pictures of European nobility, particularly photos taken by Wikipedians or ones where copyright has expired. You should find the picture, click on it, and check the licence. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences

I previously responded to your question here. I've copied and pasted it here just for your own record. K1Bond007 04:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"I would say the movie, or maybe even both if written properly, but I also don't think the section is really needed on a lot of articles. There is nothing really the same about Diamonds Are Forever, for instance. You could try asking this at Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond. At least there they'll attempt to come to a consensus about it. K1Bond007 20:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)"

[edit] Differences Between Novels and Movies

As I said in my edit comments, it was decided on the Casino Royale talk to put the list of differences in the novel's article, not the movie's. Since Casino Royale is a featured article candidate, it was decided on the WP:007 page to use that as the template. That's why I removed them from the movie articles. ColdFusion650 19:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Royal succession

Hi Emperor001;

Thank you for leaving me a message. I believe that I suggested posting at the newsgroup alt.talk.royalty in order to get an answer, not on the article page itself. You can view the group and search the content via its page on Google and you can post via a Gmail/Google Groups account or with a news client. If your computer has Outlook Express you can post via that. Setting it up is simple as instructions can quickly be found online. It is on this newsgroup where many, many experts in the field of royalty post and answer questions. I hope this helps. Charles 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Alt.talk.royalty is a newsgroup, not a website, although you can view it at http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/topics. Google has posting instructions as well. See the "New Post" link in the upper right corner. You will need a Gmail account for this. Charles 00:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canon

They're not 'canon'. Sorry. The entire James Bond franchise as it is, is a diverse grouping that shouldn't really be looked at as being canon or not. They share one commonality in that they're all based on Ian Fleming's works. You have to look at them as being their own continuum and in that respect, the video games are in their own world. Yeah, they share some common things with Brosnan's Bond films, but they're not of the same continuum. Agent Under Fire does not use Pierce Brosnan. And you're ignoring Rogue Agent and the From Russia with Love remake for the sake of your argument. You're also ignoring discrepancies such as the return of Jaws in Everything or Nothing when Jaws turned "good" by the end of Moonraker. You can't group the games with the movies. It makes no logical sense. You can't group John Gardner's novels with Ian Fleming's either and call it canon because that's a load of BS too. They're all their own continuum. To be 'canon' as far as the films go, they need to be made by EON Productions - not merely endorsed, made. That's about as simple as it gets and even then you have to kind of view each actor's interpretation lightly when considering continuation. You're free to believe what you want, but if you say the video games are 'canon' then you're also saying that 1983's Never Say Never Again is also 'canon', not to mention the original comic books and the comic strips. Canon isn't a word you should really use with Bond. Ian Fleming is canon. I'd accept that.

While I'm here, I disagree about the SPECTRE thing too. You've already seen what I wrote about that so it's not really worth debating my point on this. I will reiterate that I think Blofeld could have rebuilt it, surely, but he seemingly didn't or rather couldn't. We never saw SPECTRE again like we did from Thunderball or You Only Live Twice. We saw Blofeld and sometimes an accomplice. SPECTRE was never mentioned by them, just by Bond and he didn't know otherwise. Blofeld tried to revive it in the books, but Bond was always in his way. Loose continuity, which just goes to show why you can't really see things as black and white as 'canon' or not, is a reason for this unknown. As I said though, you're free to believe what you wish. K1Bond007 04:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But you don't know that. SPECTRE mentioned on the back of a box doesn't mean anything. The Tomorrow Never Dies SE DVD says Bond has a vertical scar on his face and signs of plastic surgery on his hand - both of these are false and actually taken from the books, not the films. You're free to believe what you want, but Wikipedia should only "report" what it can prove or cite. You can't prove SPECTRE was alive and well. You can mention both scenarios, but you can't favor one over the other. That's POV and a Wikipedia no-no. The same goes for the games, though to be far more fair in this case, fans do not usually count the games as "canon". As I said previously, you have to look at different mediums, authors, and perhaps even actors, as being of their own continuum based on Ian Fleming with light and sometimes contradictory continuity throughout. K1Bond007 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't made by EON Productions. The books by Raymond Benson don't necessarily contradict the Brosnan films either, but I wouldn't count them either. K1Bond007 02:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject James Bond

WikiProject James Bond
Collaboration of the fortnight (two weeks)

WikiProject James Bond:Collaboration of the fortnight
A new article improvement drive has been added

THE COLLABORATION OF THE FORTNIGHT (October 20, 2007 - November 3, 2007) is

Diamonds Are Forever (film)

edit this

Please contribute by editing this article, in an attempt to get it to good article status
For more information see the page here or contact SpecialWindler.
Get in and Participate

^Special_Windler 04:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem

I added a section linking to the Kings of Jerusalem article where it explains who the claimants are and why, because as it was it was just a listing of the people in the table giving no information as to why they are considered claimants in the Link to past monarchy section. So I felt that adding a section linking to the King of Jerusalem would be better.dwc lr 18:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that they are only potential claimants based on various succession theories, I just felt that it would be better adding a section directing people to the article which describes the potential claimants of the Jerusalem title in greater detail considering there isn't generally accepted claimant like the other countries in the table. However if you feel that they warrant a place in the table you can re include them though.dwc lr 21:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy

Hi Emperor001; thanks for the message. Although alt.talk.royalty is a place to find information, it needs to be backed up or sourced, especially for complex situations like the multifarious territories and genealogical lines in the French Imperial Family. For instance, it needs to be cited where the Napoleonic Italian and French Imperial thrones only can be united, and even then what would become of Westphalia? For instance, the heirs of the British throne are well cited because the succession law is known and published. Similarly these things need to be available regarding the French imperial, Napoleonic Italian and Westphalian thrones. Charles 02:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It has to be proved that that was codified in some sort of succession law, rather than Napoléon himself pressuring his siblings to give up one throne for another. Joseph exchanging, or giving up, Naples for Spain doesn't speak for France at all, because he never became Emperor of the French and therefore we don't know what territories he would or would not have had to given up. Until the succession law is found, all that can be said is that Naples-Spain was a case of merely exchanging a throne. Charles 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already put it back. Until the succession law text is found, it should stay. Even then, one can be the pretender to multiple thrones even with a conflict of succession laws, because they don't actually hold those thrones in order to have to give one up. Charles 17:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but I'm afraid that I don't know any. Charles 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Since there are only six people in the line of succession, it appears that the German Imperial family is shrinking. What would happen to the claims to the thrones of Germany, Prussia, and Mecklenburg if all of the male lines to these thrones died out? Would the last House head leave the claims to someone else in his will, or would it mean an end to claims to these thrones unless Germany decided to restore monarchy by electing a new line?" I'll just take the throne. ;) or maybe my cousin instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Zoller (talk • contribs) 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prince vs Duke

I would imagine that the reason why there is difference in ranking is due to the Latin forums. Duke, in Latin, is dux which means leader. Prince, in Latin, is princeps which means first. The two words can either be seen as close in meaning or incomparable, so it really depends on which one was used more in a system, I believe, and the lesser used one might have been seen to be more exalted. One must remember that the title of duke was simply used before prince was in Germany, as Germany (the Holy Roman Empire) was composed of stem duchies, those people territories led by dukes. Prince also was, at a time, a generic term for a ruler. Dukes, kings, emperors, etc, would all be described collectively as "princes", and even the nobles of certain countries would as well (dukes in the United Kingdom are even officially styled as Most High, Potent and Noble Prince). Therefore, for a time, "prince" was a generic, non-specialized term seemingly for anyone with the rank of duke or above. The difference between systems like Germany and France though is that the title prince was introduced, but it was decided to use it in different ways. The Holy Roman Emperor created princes, but surely wasn't going to place them above already existing dukes (that is what happened with archdukes). In France though, the title was used to style members of the Royal Family. There were already barons, viscounts, counts and dukes and the title of Prince generally was not needed for rulers. Thus with the Royal Family ranking above the nobility, prince came to be seen as greater than duke in France. In the Holy Roman Empire though, where there were tons of little semi-sovereign states, it formally came to be a ruling title and was placed after the already existing dukes. For the most parts, dukes always outranked princes unless it was influenced by having princes in a royal family. A king, of course, was not going to let his nobles outrank his family. Different for a collection of statelets though in the HRE. Charles 22:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it and added a note. They can't be ranked directly above one another because some dukes outrank some princes and some princes outrank some dukes. Charles 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spain

It still doesn't make a wishy washy statement to the effect that 'he ruled Spain as Charles I' acceptable in the lead, no more than would be describing the Spanish/Austrian Netherlands post-Philip II as 'Belgium' in a formal statement of the lead. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that he would have described himself as 'King of Spain and the Two Sicilies' – neither term was used at that time (it's "The Spains" whenever it's used to denote rule over the Iberian peninsula, or the greater part thereof, whilst, despite the reference to the Neopolitan Kingdom of Sicily as "Sicily this side of Faro", the term "Two Sicilies" was not used at the time, and the combined realm was certainly not referred to as such then), and I'd be sceptical of Charles rationalising his titles in a formal letter to such an extent as to describe himself as "King of Spain and the Two Sicilies", neither of which were unified - formally, he was King of Castile and Leon, of Aragon etc (including Sicily, which was attached to the Aragonese crown in the same way as Valencia and Catalonia), and of Naples. Furthermore, people do tend to generalise, often with awful results: Philip I of Castile is sometimes described as 'Philip I of Spain', whilst I once read a good biography of Emperor Charles IV in which the author sadly got himself hopelessly muddled in the first chapter, whilst giving background history on the Empire - he referred to the Kingdom of Sicily as "The Two Sicilies", and thought that Naples and Sicily were separate during the reign of Frederick II, because the Pope had made Frederick separate the two crowns (a confusion with the separation of the Sicilian and German crowns), and claimed that Frederick disobeyed the Pope, who finally got his way with the division under the Angevins/Aragonese. Books can make mistakes. Michael Sanders 22:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry III of Germany

I disagree with your last sentence: Henry could not have reassumed control at any time, since his son was elected by the magnates. As can be seen in the case of Henry III and his father, Conrad II, the elected crowned king was the king. Henry III being a powerful emperor could rule the Empire as emperor, but the kingdoms did require kings and Henry IV became king of Germany before his father's death. Had he been of age, like his father was when he became king of Germany, he could have opposed his father the emperor, like his father had back in the 1030s. I think you are mistaking the instances of co-rule of successors with their fathers in England (the Young King) and France (all the Capetians to Louis VIII/IX) with the situation in a truly elective monarchy like Germany. Srnec 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House of Capet

I agree with you I believe that Robert the Strong was the son of Charles the Younger, son of Charlemagne. Which would make the Capetians, Carolingians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralRichey23 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Novel-film differences

This article or section seems to contain embedded lists that may require cleanup.
To meet Wikipedia's style guidelines, please help improve this article by: removing items which are not notable, encyclopedic, or helpful from the list(s); incorporating appropriate items into the main body of the article; and discussing this issue on the talk page.

The plot summary in this article or section is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the article.
Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot.

See these tags carefully. Listing such details of plots is inappropriate on Wikipedia. Do not continue this Vikrant 14:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Each of those Goosebumps etc. articles must get these two tags. Such lists are not acceptable. Vikrant 15:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moonraker page fix

I fixed Moonraker for you. Some of this needs some more work. You talked about From Russia with Love for instance. FRWL doesn't have a disambig page, it just redirects to the novel article. I think there were a couple others that did this too. Links may need to fixed (maybe even double redirects, though I think a bot may take care of this nowadays, I don't know.) K1Bond007 (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What other pages are you referring to? I mean beyond what you did and what I mentioned above. Was there another issue like Moonraker that I didn't see? If so, list them all and I'll get to them. If not then.. ?? ;) K1Bond007 (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to change the redirect or just remove it altogether. When you go to the redirected page it will say right under the title "redirected from ___" Click that link and edit the page. Then fix the tops of all the FRWL pages that have the "for this or that click: here" stuff since they aren't needed anymore. K1Bond007 (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles V

Your source has it wrong.

According to the detailed timeline in Ernst Schulin, Kaiser Karl V. Geschichte eines übergroßen Wirkungsbereichs., Charles handed over the Netherlands to his son Philip on October 25, 1555, handed over Spain, Sicily and America to Philip on January 16,1556, and finally resigned the Imperial dignity in favour of his brother Ferdinand on August 3, 1556 with however leaving Ferdinand at liberty to decide when to assume that dignity himself (note only the dignity of an Emperor elect, as Ferdinand had already been King for more than twenty years). Ferinand entered into negotiations with the Electors and on March 14, 1558 he was formally declared Emperor elect (it took a few more years to get the Pope to recognize this however). Charles was still alive at that point - he died on September 21 - but had no part in the matter.

So in 1558 it was not Charles who laid down the Imperial dignity but Ferdinand who took it up. Charles formally resigned all his rule in 1555 and 1556.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure. I have read the declaration of his abdication. He resigned everything in 1556, Ferdinand assumed the Imperial title in 1558. Actual control was already in Ferdinand's hand in 1555. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Succession boxes

Probably should ask the Wikiproject. Dr. No through Thunderball all have the box. It may have been taken down due to debate. Who is the villain of Thunderball for instance? I would say as far as the story goes it's Largo, but we all know above him is Blofeld so it's reasonably Blofeld as well. And then there's the conflict between the movies and the films. Following Dr. No in the books is not Rosa Klebb or Blofeld, it's Auric Goldfinger. All that needs to be worked out. K1Bond007 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GoldenEye

Popularity decides naming conventions. Robert Brown (actor) is a right name but Roger Moore (actor) and Christopher Lee (actor) aren't. And you must not move a popular page without consensus. Ultra! 13:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody replying isn't the reason to do daredevil edits. I too used to do this when new to the project. Ultra! 18:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FPC I'd Like Help With

I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind going to Portal:James Bond. I'd really appreciate any criticisms or support that you could provide for this Featured portal candidate. Thanks. Ultra! 14:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

fair use[1] is not permitted on portals. Ultra! 18:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: X-Men

Please don't add anything beyond what was actually shown on screen. People will read it and go, "Wait, she's dead!" or "He wasn't an X-Man!" Alientraveller (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a plot summary for the game. Such things are more relevant to a character's article. Alientraveller (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting

He changed his name from Vikrant Phadkay to Ultraviolet scissor flame, he has been blocked twice as a vandal for being a page blanker [Phadkay]. He also failed spectacularly when he tried to be a Wikipedia Admin Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vikrant Phadkay. He is also a master sock puppeteer, Paerduug, [2] and then when he realised he had given himself away, he tried to cover it up [3] 81.130.223.198

81.130.223.198 (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tables

Fixed it. Well, for the most part. Tables weren't closed properly and you were weren't defining new rows. Take a look at the novel one to see how it should be done. Also the film table has an extra field in there somewhere. I gave up looking which is why there's a small column on the far right with nothing in it. You need to find it and remove it. It's just a single empty pipe ("|") too - well probably. K1Bond007 (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Pluck (card game)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Pluck (card game), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? TN‑X-Man 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pluck (card game)

The article does look a lot better now. The only thing I would mention is a lack of sources or references. However, it looks like you're doing a good job of improving this article. Let me know if there's any way I can help and keep up the good work! TN‑X-Man 15:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see. I did a quick Google search and can't find anything on this game. If you can look elsewhere online or in newspapers and find something there that would be good. Remember, sources must be reliable. However, judging by Google, it doesn't look like there's much out there. If there aren't any sources, the game may not be notable. Let me know what you find, though. TN‑X-Man 16:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wilhelm

Why do you oppose calling the German Emperors Wilhelm? the Wikipedia: Naming Conventions say to use the name a person is most commonly recognized as so long as the name doesn't come into conflict with another article. These two emperors are more commonly known as Wilhelm. The World Book calls them Wilhelm, so does every school textbook I have ever read, so do most websites, so do most books I've read. I very seldom see their names as William. I can understand leaving the Friedrichs at Frederick (though I personally say Friedrich) because they are most frequently called Frederick in English. For my proposed Wilhelm II move, the vote is currently 2:1 against you. Don't worry, I won't move it until I have stronger support or if too much time passes with no one responding. Besides, why are monarches the only ones to get their names Anglicanized? Why isn't Ludwig van Beethoven not at Louis of Beethoven? I refer to my German ancestors by their German names (one of which includes a man with the middle name Wilhelm). It makes no sense to only Anglicanize monarchs names. They would probably want their names left in the original language. Emperor001 (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose it because the long-standing tradition is to extend royals anglicized names simply because royalty has always transcended national borders. This is either by being closely related to other monarchs, ruling in more than one country or being present or domiciled in another country. The practise is not entirely consistent but it has existed for centuries and is established. Wikipedia has an encyclopedia observes a certain degree of consistency as do all other encyclopedias. I cannot answer why royalty follows this sort of rule because I did not make it up but you adhere to it by saying you "understand about Frederick" in spite of your question about why. Beethoven is not royalty, your ancestors were not royalty, etc, so you can't compare them. And we don't go by what dead people "want". Check other Wikipedias, Elizabeth II for instance. See what she is called in other languages. Charles 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for posting a new comment on your talk page, but you requested that all concerns be addressed via e-mail. Unfortunately, I don't know your e-mail address, so is it okay to use this page or would you rather give me your address? Emperor001 (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Special:EmailUser/Charles. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, no need to ask my forgiveness! Peter is right though, the email is also on the left side under the search box (Email this contributor). I also have your user talk page in my watchlist so if you reply here I will have notice of your changes. Charles 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply at Wikipedia talk:User contributions

Hello, Emperor001. You have new messages on Wikipedia talk:User contributions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

tgies (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email users

It's Special:EmailUser/USERNAME (so for Charles, replace USERNAME with Charles), in case you didn't see it there. I'm going to redelete the talk page. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)