User talk:West Virginian/Archive 7

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Hello, I was wondering why you have gone about redirecting all of the articles to of Orléans which as we know is not even a title and never has been!!! I dont understand! also, the Two Sicilies situation, why revert them all to Bourbon-Sicilies, they are members of the House of Bourbon and therefore Princes/es of The Two Sicilies! I am currantly trying to sort out this huge mess you have caused with both families, it will confuse so many people! Regards Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

fair enough about the convo's, i will be a regular contributor to them as this situation has got ridiculously out of hand! however, im sure you may have read but i will say it again, d'Orléans as a surname is not translated - Philippe II, Duke of Orléans is [i know it is titled as that due to Wiki étiquette but still just for arguments sake] Philippe d'Orléans', Duke of' Orléans! Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Me again :) i was just wondering, where are the convo's regarding the Two Sicilies lot? i am not satisfied with them at all lol LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

hello, i don't know if i am just being dim, but do i write on my/your talk page or on the arbitration committee link? i dont get it :( LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

hey, whats happened to our friends.. LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Meile Rockefeller, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meile Rockefeller. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've only recently started reviewing these; most of what I've done at T:TDYK is nominating articles. I really don't have too many novel suggestions; perhaps (1) make the article much longer than the minimum, if you can, so that the reviewer doesn't have to bother checking the length — it's rather an extreme example, but I didn't need to check the length at Operation Sandblast; (2) add plenty of sources, as you've done: it's quite a bad idea to make the reviewer look for the sources that you're using; (3) a picture always helps; (4) and do your best to introduce links to your new article from other relevant articles (see my contribution history for what I've done with Bethel Academy, which I've just nominated for DYK), as it's not a good idea to have an article at DYK that's tagged as an orphan. Nyttend (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Caponer. I've left my response to your question on my talk page. Marchije•^speak/_peek 09:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi; could you give your opinion here? Thanks! --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Caponer, there was recently a discussion in the talk page of article Gaston, comte d'Eu [1] about and editor called Fernandoe who insists on changing the meaning of sourced text although the source does not says what he writes. To be more clear, he insists on adding "surnames" to royals.[2] [3] The discussion, as you can see since you were also part of it, agreed that his editions do not make any sense. Worse: he did not bother to participate in it. I am tired of serving as nothing more as a watch dog reverting his edits. Something must be done about him and fast. --Lecen (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the main issue I have with Wikipedia. It's too bureaucratic for my taste. it's pretty much obvious that Fernandoe is a punk who wants no more than to cause problems around. I'm tired of losing my time writing messages to everyone asking for help. I also requested arbitration on the matter and I was also tunerd down. For weeks I haven't got the chance to write nothing new on the articles I contribute. My time in wikipedia is to serve now as a watch dog. Funny, isn't? --Lecen (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Capone, Lecen is a liar. I'm not a punk who want to cause problems around articles of the Brazilian monarchy. He have a problem with me, I really don't know why? Yes, could be because I was wrong on my edition in the article of Pedro II of Brazil, when I added the names Braganza and Habsburg. I added this names because in various history books, he is mentioned with this names. But Lecen insisted to undo my editions and afterward, he explained to me why Pedro II of Brazil, doesn't have those names(Braganza of his father and Habsburg of his mother).

• Now, his father, Pedro I of Brazil had it. In the majority of history books that he is mentioned, Pedro I is referred with the name: Braganza of the Royal House of his father John VI of Portugal, King of Portugal and Duke of Braganza and Bourbon of his mother, Carlota Joaquina of Bourbon. Including in the farewell letter to Brazil, when he abdicated to the throne of Brazil, to guarantee the Portuguese throne to his daughter: D. Maria da Glória de Bragança, princess of Portugal, duchess of Braganza(Bragança) and in the future, Queen Maria II of Portugal. He signed the date and then his names: 12 de abril de 1831, D. Pedro de Alcântara de Bragança e Bourbon.

• About he article of the Queen Maria II of Portugal - you recently undo my edition in the article of Maria II of Portugal, Queen of Portugal and duchess of Braganza. Please, I would to explain why I'm adding the name Braganza(Bragança in Portuguese).

• The monarchs of Portugal and therefore, sovereign of the Portuguese Empire, and the infantes and princes of this country, all of them are members of Houses, in fact, a Royal House. I'm just adding the name of her Royal Houses in her name. The only exception is Pedro II of Brazil... because he wasn't Duke of Braganza and he was the chief of the Brazilian Imperial House.

• The House of Braganza is the family, which ruled Portugal for nearly three hundred years. And this house was initially a Duchy House, until 1640, when John of Braganza, Duke of Braganza, became King of Portugal. Because since 1580, Portugal was under domain of House of Habsburg.

And the "greatgreat grandfather" of the first King of Portugal of the Braganza Dynasty, was the King Manuel II of Portugal, of the House of Aviz.

My intention is to edit the true history, not to invent a new. I'm just adding the names of her Royal Houses...

If I'm making a history mistake, please, correct and send me a explanation. And, sorry about my English, I'm from Portugal... Happy New Year, and I wish a good year for you and your family. Sincerely, --Fernandoe (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Caponer, You are extremely right and I'm willing to work with fellow editors. I wasn't knowing that original source is unauthorized in WIkipédia, but, as I prove to you, We just have to read te other articles to see that some king or infante was child of other monarch... although now I'm knowing that this is unauthorized. Thanks again for your advice! And I hope to edit Wikipédia, with the true next to me. If I make a mistake in the future, call me because I want to know the right.

• About the article of Gaston of Orléans, count of Eu. He is really wellknowed by count of Eu, but he had other importants titles that, in my opinion, need to be mentioned in this Encyclopedia.

What's your opinion in this article?

--Fernandoe (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Monsieur, that was the old Louis Philippe Charles, as such I have not done a thing for days =] Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul I, 1st Prince Esterházy of Galántha, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hanging Rocks, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Caponer, I'm editing in a new article: Alfeu Adolfo Monjardim de Andrade e Almeida. Could you see my edition, and say what you think? I just add some internal links, and I justified them in the summary box...

I edited too in the article of the singer Maysa Matarazzo. I change a information, about her grandfather. Because in the WP:PT is writed that she was granddaughter of Alfeu Adolfo de Andrade e Almeida, Baron of Monjardim, and in WP:EN was writed that she was a great-granddaughter of his. What do you think? And I translated the title of nobility in the Maysa article, because in WP:EN was writed Alfeu Adolfo de Andrade e Almeida, Barão de Monjardim, and the correct, in my opinion is 'Alfeu Adolfo de Andrade e Almeida, Baron of Monjardim. Regards, --Fernandoe (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moorefield and North Branch Turnpike, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Washington Bottom Farm at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Storye book (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On April 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Washington Bottom Farm, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:ScanlonLogHouseThreeChurches.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 20:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved! --Caponer (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:OldPointsWVPostOffice.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 20:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved! --Caponer (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Caponer,

I hope you can help me with regarding to the article on the 'Massimo' family (see link here), given your interest and knowledge of European heraldry. I am a regular user and editor of Wikipedia, with a particular interest in the Roman Papal families.

During some work on Wiki I came across the page on the 'Massimo' family of Rome. I noticed that the article, which had remained essentially the same since 2006 (both historically and with reference to the current heirs), had been suddenly been changed. Specifically, the last paragraph on current holders of the titles 'Prince of Arsoli' and 'Prince of Roccasecca' and their heirs had been erased, the sources removed, and only a single person referenced - called Prince Fabrizio Massimo-Brancaccio. When I reverted the article to its original form - which had gone through 100s of edits over the years - it kept being essentially vandalised back by the same person (the editor 'Fabritius'), who eventually (in the 'History' section of the page on 13 Feb 2010) identified himself as Fabrizio Massimo-Brancaccio and a member of the family (with a clear conflict of interest).

After repeated edits, the page was protected, and admin Nick D asked Fabritius and myself to start a discussion regarding the disputed last paragraph of the article. As I indicated in the note I left on Nick D's talk page (see this post), and a subsequent note I left on the 'Massimo' article talk page (see this post), I am happy to lay out the arguments and discuss the differences with Fabritius in a calm, fact-based and non-personal way.

By way of background, while the page was blocked for repeated 'edit warring' over the last paragraph, I would like to point out that I have never actually added any content to the article that wasn't already there for years before I first edited. I have only reversed the new 'vanity' edits by made by 'Fabritius' in Jan 2010 (and subsequently) and added authoritative, original online sources to back up the original paragraph. The paragraph in dispute has remained essentially unchanged since 2006 (see the edit by 'CARAVAGGISTI' on 28/09/06 in this version, para at bottom), until Dec 2009 (see the edit by LeilaniLad on 2/12/09 in this version, para at bottom), apart from 'non-structural' changes (such as a person passing away and being replaced by their heir). Between Sept 2006 and Jan 2010 many editors have altered content on the page, but the paragraph in dispute remained essentially the same.

I am not trying to push my own content or views, I am simply trying to revert the article to the state it was in before my first edit, after a sustained and repeated attempt by an editor with a clear conflict of interest (Fabritius has admitted that he is a member of the family and writing about himself - see conflict of interest link below), from changing the article to focus on himself, without providing the source back-up required.

I have begun to lay out my arguments in a researched, sourced and referenced way - easy even for someone unfamiliar with the topic to understand - on the 'Massimo' talk page. For example, I have answered Fabritius's key argument - that only he is entitled to the Princely title and the other members of the family are not - with a detailed response, with multiple references and links to an original and universally-recognised source. Fabritius presented his key arguments in the following posts: his request for an edit to the protected page (see this post), and his second request for an edit (see this post). In response, I have replied with a comprehensive answer (see this post for full details of my research) which I believe comprehensively supports my argument.

I am genuinely trying to have a civilised discussion, based on scholarship and facts, but I am not getting a reasonable response on the other side. Instead of Fabritius providing me with his counter arguments and trying to reach a solution, I am the subject of insults - being called a 'liar' (see this post), 'ridiculous' (see this post), and 'biased' (see this post). I am genuinely trying to work according the the Wiki guidelines on dispute resolution, yet I am finding it hard to have a reasoned exchange.

I fear Fabritius's clear conflict of interest (see this post on 'Fabritius's conflict of interest' for details) is making him unable to make clear, concise arguments based on real research and sources/references. Fabritius has been very active since the article was protected, repeatedly trying to appeal to Nick D directly on his talk page to just revert the edit (see these posts), yet since I have posted my detailed response to his questions well over 24hrs ago, he has been silent. As the 'conflict of interest' link above explains, I am a neutral editor, am categorically not a member of the Massimo family (despite Fabritius's strong insinuations) and do not have a conflict of interest.

Nick D (administrator) has asked me to solicit comments from editors interested in this area and I would like to invite you to comment on my arguments, which as I said I have detailed here (see this post for full details of my research).

I would welcome your comments on the 'Massimo' talk page and hope that you will support my research.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

On May 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Indian Mound Cemetery, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you had made the articles for most of the unincorporated communities in Frederick County, Virginia. There was one missing, so I went ahead and made it. I was wondering if you could take a look at the Canterburg, Virginia page and maybe add an infobox and some referencing. I am not sure if there is anything to be found about the town, as I live in Frederick County and didn't even know it exsisted. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think the article looks great. It's well-sourced. Only thing is that it's not really necessary to put in 4 or 5 references for 1 sentence. One or two will suffice. Also, I made some minor tweaks. You can view them through the history. But other than that, it's a great article! Kudos on the good job in writing it! :) Cheers, BejinhanTalk 12:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I forgot to add that you should try a DYK for it. :) If it's within the 5-day article creation criteria and they are more than 1,500 characters, I'm sure they will approve it. BejinhanTalk 09:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of List of places named after Robert Byrd at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chanaka L (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

On July 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mordecai Barbour, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

On July 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of places named after Robert Byrd, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Abingdon (plantation) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Hope Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! APK whisper in my ear 05:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

On July 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abingdon (plantation), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

On July 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marshall S. Cornwell, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)