User talk:Hebel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Please comment on Talk:Laksa

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laksa. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:British Empire

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Empire. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

123Steller acted against consenus

I have to tell you - since in the last times you are not as much active on the article before - that suprisingly 123Steller roughly broke the consensus that is very amazing for me, since he wrote warm reconcilation in my personal page - check the clarification section - and also we made with together with you and Fakirbakir the consensus that 123Steller tried to override...I reverted it and I warned him, I hope you will act and stand up for wiki rules as you (and 123Steller) made about me earlier. Thanks (KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:List of oldest living people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of oldest living people. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sophia Magdalena of Denmark

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sophia Magdalena of Denmark. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:First Anglo-Maratha War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:First Anglo-Maratha War. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867

As I told you, I did not see any consensus, and if I am understanding good you want to say the majority decides about consensus or what? (2:1) Then also I could say regarding the two other articles that User: Fakirbakir + Me vs. Hebel is 2-1...how could one editor and an ip address decide on such a "consensus"? Then better take it to the ANI since the consensus that I do not find is also unacceptable, since it is hindering the true content of the sources and removing very important pharapraphs, clear vandalism look like! Moreover the history does not start with sockpuppets, since before it was originally put by non-sockpuppets, so be careful with the explanation! And the most inmportant is, I did not reinstated anything former, since I added the pharapraph with modified content! (KIENGIR (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC))

If you want to break the consensus you will have to build a new one first. And yes, this whole thing, including some of the text you are now reinstating, started with a fairly well documented sock game. The original version was indeed by Fakirbakir but that was added to by one or more socks of Stubes99. That content is still in your additions. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The "consensus" is already broken, the "consensus" I never saw. Since years this version was, and you want to deteriorate the subject by claiming on sockpuppets, by Fakirbakir is not a sockpuppet, and your argumentation would have only a creditable ground if from the middle of nowhere sockpuppet would have first introduced the text. If Fakirbakir introduced it first, I support him and not any sockpuppet, I have no deal with them. Anyway since you edited also this article after the debate, how interesting that is not "debated" or "reverted", since if you'd be Jupiter or the master of any Hungary related article you have the right any time to edit but other's never can edit anything and you ad hoc judge to revert anything that is not your edit. Where is the fair play? Anyway the edit I introduced does not brake any consensus, it is fair, does not change anything on that you claim on the "consensus" never seen.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC))

I also answered in my personal page, but I insert it also here:

It was not a willfull 1RR violation, a I checked the time two times before, but it seems because of the time zone confusion it could happen, not any Administrators answered my question about this, even after the edit the time did not have less then 24 hours, but after I saw it was recorded 10 minutes before. I told you earlier my point that at least if we did not touch two articles this one should be left as it is until new consensus, the pages may have similar content but they are not identical and I don't see any problematic content. You should not have intervened and leave the case - this 1RR - to resolve with only 123Steller and the Administrators. I am sure because of your text I was blocked that was again not as accurate as it should have been!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC))

Hi, would you make an offer for the resolution to this article regarding the history section, second pharagraph (your insertion)? I think it should be very similar like in the Austrian Empire offer...Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC))

Hello, I'll write something. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Zionism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zionism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maya civilization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maya civilization. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donetsk People's Republic

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donetsk People's Republic. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

H. Delgado

Hey Hebel,

I undid Anjo's edit on Humberto Delgado, that definitely is a big claim that needs to be backed with a source. Good eye!

Best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Malcolm X

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malcolm X. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Penny

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Penny. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lord Uxbridge's leg

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lord Uxbridge's leg. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jack Ruby

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jack Ruby. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Carlos I

You are deleting information based on reliable sources just to make what some people here (Miguelist monarchic supporters) want? That's not what Wikipedia should be. Please replace the information in the article of King Carlos I of Portugal. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no poster page for your pet causes. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

My very exact opinion. This is not acceptable. Yes they were Dukes and Duchesses of Braganza. Surely this could have been abbreviated in the past. Whichever case you should not abbreviate history or historical facts. Their Royal House was not Braganza but rather Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The page is inaccurate in historical terms since the last five Portuguese Monarchs certainly used the term aforementioned to refer to their House. Historical accuracy not propaganda please. The Miguelist line of today does not rule over the Kingdom of Portugal since Portugal is a Republic. Even if this has anything to do with them.

You are basically telling any illegitimate relatives of the last Dynasty that could be living today their relation was a member of the Braganza House which is still represented today. Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is no longer represented. Houses can be represented certainly by legitimately related living relatives. There could be living relatives today. They would not be legitimately related and should not be entitled to represent it. Even illegitimately they should not be entitled to represent this House without approval from representatives of the Countries of Belgium Bulgaria Germany Poland and the United Kingdom. Any representation would essentially be illegal and completely unofficial.

By posting this you are essentially enlisting any survivors of the last Royal Portuguese House into the House of Braganza.

Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is a defunct House. Braganza is a represented House. Serious mistake. Any representation of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha should fall into the House of Wettin of which it is a cadet. This by being a cadet of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The House of Wettin can be represented in the Countries of Belgium Bulgaria Germany Poland Portugal and the United Kingdom. The House of Braganza is represented solely in the Country of Portugal. This is an extremely serious mistake on the part of Wikipedia. Let me explain. Any surviving members of this unrepresented House that read your page in Belgium Bulgaria Germany Poland and the United Kingdom now think they are Portuguese. Wikipedia can be held accountable for this.

Wikipedia could be invading five different Countries with a page like this in favour of the Country of Portugal. Wikipedia is serving the Country of Portugal on these pages instead of registering history. I did not know Wikipedia to be a tool for nationalist propaganda instead of an historical encyclopaedia.

This amounts to an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia promoting illiteracy or simply not having enough understanding on this matter. This is not educated.

Nobody should be allowed to modify historical facts. The House of King Carlos I was "Bragança-Saxe-Coburgo e Gota" . The relevant Wikipedia pages documenting the last Portuguese dynasty are therefore all inaccurate at least in the English translation in this respect. I volunteer to do all the corrections myself if someone can please approve this. Would appreciate a reply. Jccoelho99 (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed substantially and the present edits are the result of consensus. The official name of the House in Portugal remained Braganza throughout, although a footnote represents the fact that these people were also Princes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't find this acceptable if you may please substantiate who is responsible for the consensus Jccoelho99 (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The relevant discussion can be found here Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. To my understanding the last Portuguese House was a cadet of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in turn a cadet of the House of Wettin. I think any Germans should be more considerate since you're taking the opinion of the Portuguese and your own. You're forgetting Belgium Bulgaria Poland and the United Kingdom. All these Countries can have relatives of Wettin as well. Even the Emperor of India was related to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Having Portuguese citizenship I oppose you list the last Portuguese House as Braganza. The relation was much further reaching than that Jccoelho99 (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I also see Germany favouring only the Country of Portugal concerning this matter. You're neglecting relations you could have at five further Countries in doing so Jccoelho99 (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Further still to this. It was the Republic of Portugal that murdered King Carlos I. By listing a Portuguese House on his page you are covering up the fact that the Country of Portugal killed someone that had relatives in Belgium Bulgaria Poland Germany and the United Kingdom. You're giving the impression that only Portugal was accountable for the person Jccoelho99 (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1st century

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1st century. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monarchy of Canada

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monarchy of Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Josip Broz Tito

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Josip Broz Tito. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Germaine de Staël may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• husband was 37, the wife 20. The marriage ended with a formal separation in 1797.|date=April 2014}} This was a mere legal formality, however, and on the whole the marriage seems to have been
• would daily recite the sentence from ''Delphine'', 'There is nothing real in the world but love.' [Pos. Pol. iv. 44). Our thoughts and our acts, he said, can only give us happiness through results: and results are

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Legacy of George Washington

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Legacy of George Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:My Old Kentucky Home

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:My Old Kentucky Home. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

...

Is there a problem you would like to address Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Not particularly at this point. But you are welcome to do so if you want to. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems you are the one who wants to based on your snarky comments that was aimed at me in another user page. I was just trying to give you a chance to say what you want in front of me or you can stop doing what you are doing Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

My talk to others is basically none of your business. If I have anything substantive to say to you, I know where to address you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It is actually part of my business, since various editors around Wikipedia communicate with others including admins and looking through it is important. You are not interested in addressing anything just making snarky comments about me in other people's page. I would recommend that you eliminate such vile behavior at the moment. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course people communicate with each other. I communicate with others as I am sure you do as well. Just go on with what you're doing. So will I, whether you like it or not. And stop complaining. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov, In hindsight however, if you are talking about my comments to Favonian, that was definitly not about you. That is a problem related to another field of interest I have recently had some problems with. So rest assured that you were not in my mind as I made those comments. You are not a suspect in that matter to me as I don't think it's your style to do anything like that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I have the right to complain on your talk page, that is why I'm bringing forth my case here and telling it you in front of your face, just know the the great eye is ever watchful Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before, you should learn to communicate better. It will save you heaps of trouble. As of now, you haven't actually told me anything useful at all. I'm not here to play guessing games with you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

......

I wasn't playing any guessing games. Not only that you just deleted or should I say archived my writings while it wasn't finished, you need to cool it Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't think the heat is on my terrain that much, but ok, reinstated as you can see. I'm awaiting your further comments then. But stop playing 'smoke and mirrors' games and actually state your complaint. Which you haven't actually done yet. You could have done that in the section title instead of just typing ellipses. You told me earlier that you are "bringing forth your case". Again, you haven't actually done that yet. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I already brought my case to your attention, I have served my purpose, I am making sure you are staying on line and that your attitude is straightened up and adjusted. Sometimes you keep swerving, we are here to help you. Now you can archive or delete or let it stand Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Not really Alexis Ivanov, you can either tell me what you are on about and what the subject matter of your complaint to me is, or you don't. Both are fine with me. Stop being sanctimonious. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Watch your mouth, son. I don't have to repeat myself again, I already told you and it's done deal. No go do your business. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sabah

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sabah. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

History of the Episcopal Church

Actually, your edit is the POV statement. To say that the Episcopal church "maintains" apostolic succession states a point of view. So I changed to "claims to maintain," which is a true statement, and I provided a citation to Pope Leo XIII's document, disputing the claim. Further, the bald statement that a church maintains apostolic succession is not subject to verification, because, to my knowledge, no one has ever produced a complete list of bishops, beginning with the Apostles, and continuing in an unbroken line to the present. If you are aware of such a source, I would be interested in having a citation to it.John Paul Parks (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

[[User:John Paul Parks], basically you're right. But I wouldn't take Leo XIII's word for it, since that would suggest that the RC church does maintain and other churches don't because he says so. I'll restore your text, but not the source given. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:YouTube

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:YouTube. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tamils

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tamils. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Your vandalism at Ukrainians

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ukrainians, you may be blocked from editing. Your section-blanking, and subsequent repeated re-insertion of false information, accompanied by the removal of the cited correct information, constitutes vandalism. Your vandalism has already persisted to the point that I will not give you any further warnings, but will now go directly to the administrators. Blucdgl (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Blucdgl, but I don't know what to think of this anymore, since everyone, not just you, keeps adding and removing information and changing his or her mind. It happened before on this and other (notably Belarussians) pages. There is a problem of trustworthiness with these sections on more pages. Wikipedia procedure is that you try to resolve the conflict on the talk page of the article and I haven't seen you there yet! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh... and I must warn you about using templates about, and words like, vandalism.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of South America

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of South America. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Recoleta. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:State of Palestine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State of Palestine. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes

Please stop modifying the edits made on those various Slavic pages. West Slavic is not merely linguistic differences, it is cultural too as well, hence why they are branches. Ukrainian culture is not similar to Polish culture. Ukrainians are Eastern Slavic and practice Orthodoxy, Polish are Western Slavic and practice Roman Catholicism. You seem to be fixated with these Slavic pages, tell me why? You are not even Slavic, you are from the Netherlands so how could you possibly know? I am of Polish and Croat origin, I know far more in this subject manner more than you ever will. Stop changing these articles or face actions from a moderator.

User:130.156.22.254 Watch your talkpage. We follow academic sources on Wikipedia. Even if editors don't agree. Blogs are not academic sources. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop saying "we" when it is merely just you. And there are no academic sources that you have provided that state the Ukrainian culture is similar to Poland, therefore rendering it useless and removed. Ukrainian is an Eastern Slavic culture closely related linguistically and genetically to other fellow Eastern Slavs such as Belarusians and Russians. Polish is a Western Slavic language and culture with linguistic, cultural, and genetic ties to Slovakia and the Czech Republic. You stated that the only differences are linguistic, that is FALSE. Seems as if you do not know Slavic culture (How possibly could you? You're a Netherlander).

I don't know who this nutjob ^ is who is posting the "you DO have to be a chicken to judge an egg" but that's just nationalistic poppycock. We use Reliable Sources for Wiki, not pseudo-patriotic blogs that any podunk editor can publish. Oh, sorry, I see that Ed blocked this IP for disruptive editing. Carry on.  :-) 68.19.0.143 (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cayman Islands

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cayman Islands. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Potato chip

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Potato chip. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Potato chip

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Potato chip. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erfurt massacre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erfurt massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

OFFICIAL LANGUAGE vs. OFFICIAL NAME IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

Hi, please check the recent edits between me and Yopie in the Austria-Hungary article. Yopie very unprofessionally reverted my edit, the details you are able to read...answer these questions and act if it's necessary:

1. Is it true that Czech and Polish were official languages of Austria-Hungary (it is possible only for the Austrian side of the Monarchy anyway)?

2. If some regional lanugages would be official, would it omit the officiality of the German langauge, moreover the German official names of the cities (as they were under Austrian administration)?

I think - and my recent edit shows this it a minimum that German names are official names, the question is if the Czech and Polish names can be also fairly put in this status..

Thanks (KIENGIR (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

Hi KIENGIR, as far as I know Czech became co-official for internal matters only in Bohemia around the seventies or eighties of the 19th century. About the same goes for Polish in Galicia, where it became a co official in a somewhat more broader sense. I'll look into it. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, please give a feedback on your result and confirm if in the contemporary official name section in the Austrian side the Czech and Polish names next to the German are properly put or not (I still assume that any-kind of level of an official language does not necessarily override the OFFICIAL NAME of a city, so my primary assumption is still that only the German names should be put in the contemporary official name section....the official langauges are a different story or category)(KIENGIR (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:Constitution of Medina

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Constitution of Medina. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits

Can you please explain why you insist on adding an edit which includes a source recognized as unreliable since 2005 (see the talk page)? Everything was fine until an ultra-nationalist added this unreliable source again. Why do you support it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:B410:5700:E5:BD2B:70B7:BE19 (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not insult or call other editors negative terms. I just spoke to you about your use of edit summaries and you seemed to understand. Then you immediately come here and call someone "an ultra-nationalist". Your comments are not collaborative and do not seek to achieve consensus. Please practice civility, or I'm afraid you will be blocked from editing (which obviously you don't want). :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No, i don't mean this user!! I mean the user "Judist" who started this on 20th of May, see history section! If you take a look on his contributions you'll see he is an ultra-nationalist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:B410:5700:E5:BD2B:70B7:BE19 (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Listen carefully. I will say this only once. This and other articles that have a relation to the Greek Macedonian conflict have recently been infested by edits that are not sourced, by editors that don't do the work required and flatly refuse to discuss. If your edit is reverted and you are asked to take your case to the talkpage, you do just that. If you have a source that would justify your edit you take it to the article or the talkpage. Other editors won't do the work for you. Section blanking is generally regarded as vandalism and immediately reverted. I will treat it as such. There is also a suspicion regarding sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry in this matter, which has been reported. Take your case to the talkpage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

IP created a thread about you on WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. shoy (reactions) 16:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 13:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.175.240 (talk)

Your edit and possible bias on Kingdom of Hungary

Hello, you seem to have undid my contribution to the page Kingdom of Hungary by removing Polish from the list of "other languages" spoken. You then told me that I had no source, meanwhile the other languages listed as spoken have no source themselves. Please do not be biased and hypocritical. The Kingdom of Hungary covered a portion of territory that is now modern day Poland. Poland and Hungary have had very close ties during the long history of Central Europe, for example the Congress of Visegrád summits around the same time as the kingdom. There is and was no absolute reason for you to remove Polish from the list of other languages spoken. Thank you. 69.119.175.240 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)69.119.175.240

The IP attack

Hello, sir. Your help with the vandalism of the 99 and 199 Harry's IP is appreciated. He is unstoppable, probably the pages targeted by these should be semi-protected. Judist (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Judist, Thanks, I've made a sockpuppet report on the matter here. I suppose we'll soon hear more about that. Targeting statistics on pages on ethnic groups is a widespread problem somehow... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chris Kyle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chris Kyle. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Romay-Habsburg"

Hey Hebel,

Thanks for the ping on my talk. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, I haven't been online much recently, but I'm glad the "Romay-Habsburg" situation solved itself. Hope all is well with you friend!

Best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Falklands War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Falklands War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your POV

Please stop your POV with your article revertions. You just want to cover up the real information about the History of Portugal and you constantly give titles of fantasy to the Miguelist pretenders. Just to remember one of the most relevant fact from the History of Portugal: the Portuguese Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 (and never revoked) in article 98 categorically states as follows: "The collateral line of the ex-infant Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". Also Queen Maria II of Portugal and Portuguese Cortes declared King Miguel without his royal status and also declared him, and all of his descendants, forever ineligible to succeed to the Portuguese crown and forbade them, under death pennalty, to return to Portugal. This decision was supported by the Portuguese Republic. It's important to everyone here in Wikipedia remember this historical fact. Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio «of Braganza» are JUST pretenders. Please, replace the correct information. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You should learn to support your assertions with reliable sources. You should also learn to understand that POV is not the same as disagreeing with your project of WP:rightgreatwrongs. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You should also note that article 98 you talked about earlier WAS INDEED REVOKED. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You made Miguelist promotion and now it's clear to see that. And you call "Prince" and "Duke" to someone that is just a pretender... have you neutrality? No. But you are happy publishing false information after claiming neutrality to the other pretendants articles... OMG! Please... Now, in Portugal, anyone takes as serious the Miguelist pretenders because they only spread false information as you are doing here. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, you continue to publish false information and erase the true information only to promote the pretenders from Miguelist line. You should be ashamed! Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

And you continue deleting referenced information... Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Who are you to affirm that Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza is not a bastard daughter of King Carlos I of Portugal? She is also cited as "Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Braganza" in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012). And she is cited by several historicians and authors as the real legitimated daughter of King Carlos. Read:

• Humberto Delgado; Memórias (Colecção "Compasso do tempo"). Lisboa, 1974, pp. 233–234.
• Manuel de Bettencourt e Galvão; Ao Serviço d'El-Rei (Cadernos Políticos), Lisboa: Gama, 1949, pp. 123–129.
• A.H. de Oliveira Marques; História de Portugal - Vol. III'. Lisboa, 1982.
• Jean Pailler; D. Carlos I Rei de Portugal. Lisboa: Bertrand Editora, 2000, pp. 158.
• Jean Pailler; Maria Pia: A Mulher que Queria Ser Rainha de Portugal. Lisboa: Bertrand, 2006.
• Jean Pailler; A tragédia da Rua do Arsenal. Lisboa: Editorial Planeta, 2009.
• Mariano Robles Romero Robledo & José António Novais; Humberto Delgado : assassinato de um herói. Lisboa, 197-.
• Fernando Luso Soares; Maria Pia, Duquesa de Bragança contra D. Duarte Pio, o senhor de Santar. Lisboa: Minerva, 1983.
• Mário Soares; Portugal amordaçado: depoimento sobre os anos do fascismo. Lisboa: Arcádia, 1974, pp. 274–278.
• Francisco de Sousa Tavares; O caso de Maria Pia de Bragança (13 de maio de 1983), in Escritos Políticos I, Porto, Mário Figuerinhas, 1996, pp. 246–251.
• José María Zavala; La Infanta Republicana: Eulalia de Borbón, la oveja negra de la Dinastía. Madrid: Plaza & Janes, 2008.
• José María Zavala; Bastardos y Borbones. Los hijos desconocidos de la dinastía. Madrid: Plaza & Janes, 2011.
• Ronald H. Chilcote; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012, pp. 37.
• Isabel Lencastre; Bastardos Reais - Os Filhos Ilegítimos Dos Reis De Portugal. Lisboa: Oficina do Livro, 2012.
• Fernando Dacosta; O Botequim da Liberdade. Lisboa: Casa das Letras, 2013, pp. 176–177.

These sources are sufficiently varied to attest that this is not a simple assumption on the lady of parenthood. The article of Maria Pia of Braganza are quite vandalized and neutralized, so not even understand why they do not allow more issues to rectify what is missing. But what is not admitted is the amount of false titles attributed to Miguelist pretenders. They may be descendants of ancient kings (but it is also controversial), but what is factual is that those titles are not officially recognized in Portugal and they are still used and challenged by other famous throne pretenders. Your activity here in Wikipedia only promotes the absence of neutrality and the publication of false titles in favor of these people.

• Miguel, Duke of Braganza (false title, he is just a pretender) should be renamed as his real name Miguel Januário de Bragança and used the correct Pretender/Infobox in his article;
• Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza (false title, he is just a pretender) should be renamed to his real name Duarte Nuno de Bragança and used the correct Pretender/Infobox in his article;
• Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza (false title, he is just a pretender) should be renamed to his real name Duarte Pio de Bragança and used the correct Pretender/Infobox in his article;
• Isabel, Duchess of Braganza (false title, she is just a pretender) should be renamed to her real name Isabel de Herédia and used the correct Pretender/Infobox in her article;

Etc... Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A.-S.

Hey Hebel,

Sorry to hear about all the trouble that Anjo is causing you. I commented on the admin talkboard and hopefully that will aid in your case. Reason, , and composure are on our side.

Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia already accept fantasy titles? We here in the false community Dukes of Bragança, false Princesses of Portugal... a real advertisement for Miguelist line... very "good" work, Cristiano Tomás and Gerard von Hebel. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey,

I definitely understand your wanting to put that disclaimer there. Im just trying to enunciate it a bit better than just stating something that comes off as very obvious in my mind. look at this and tell me what you think.

Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Cristiano Tomás, I think it's great what you wrote there. But I would leave out the Rosario Podimani section..... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Trying a consensus: Hello, I made a new neutral proposal, based on Cristiano Tomás version, to the article House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I hope now (both of you) accept that: it's neutral, based on the references and sustained in what Cristiano previously wrote. See here. I hope to hear from you soon. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You're playing with my face? You are replacing fantasy titles as if they were true titles of royalty; you are eliminating all the Infobox/Pretender in Miguelist pretender articles (and tell that they are real members of royalty in a Republic); you are reverting all information just to promote lies and in a brazenly non-neutral way... and you dare to accuse me? I ask you to stop these attacks. We can not allow lies here. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A consensus is decided by all the people, not only by you and your non-neutral point of view. I based all my new editings in Cristiano editings and not changed the main sense of them. But you deleted all. What you are doing now is pure vandalism and you really don't want any consensus. It's false what you are publishing, so I will replace all information and propose to administration to analise your CLEAR act of vandalism in the articles about this subject. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Hebel,

I was wondering if you think there's enough material to suggest a blocking of AS on the admin board. I really didn't want to come to that, but this issue keeps coming back and is diverting my attention from other articles I'd much rather be working on. Not to mention he acts against WP, consensus, takes personal stabs at people, and disrupts wiki stability. I think it would justified to prevent future possible disruptions and edit wars. Let me know what you think.

Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I thoroughly understand how this is diverting your attention. I feel the same way, especially since it's always the exact same story that keeps repeating itself. And you should see my e-mailbox of the last few days. Interesting proposition and I think we have enough material if we make a dossier of incidents with diffs including edit summaries, and fragments of talk from us and others that have been dealing with this and of course the right wording from this side. Would we have to take such a document to WP:ANI? Or is there another venue you're thinking of? I'm willing to gather some material and make a document, but that will take some time. I'm not sure how it will be taken by the admins however, but we'll see won't we? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cristiano Tomás: You continue to agree attack me for silencing me, it's a shame. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Anjo-sozinho, every pretender on Wikipedia get's called by his courtesy title. The Duke of Bavaria, The Prince of Prussia, at least two Dukes of Savoy that hate each other and about three Margraves of Meissen that also don't agree about the succession to the throne and yes indeed also the Duke of Braganza. We don't have to agree with that policy, but it is the policy and we follow it! Can't you see how that would NOT apply to a pretender who has no courtesy titles because she is an illegitimate child who's parentage is not proven? I can't make it any clearer than that. Also read up on Wikipedia etiquette and how we are not here to promote our pet causes but to write an encyclopedia. I don't think you understand that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza is cited as "Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Braganza" in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012) and as "...Her Royal Highness D. Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza, the Crown Princess of Portugal" in Jean Pailler; Maria Pia of Braganza: The Pretender. New York: ProjectedLetters, 2006. But there are more and more examples and you don't have any proof to tell that her claims are false. If you call "Dukes" to foreign persons (remember that the Portuguese Courts and Law banish all foreigns from the sucession line, even to President of the Republic role), Miguelists cannot be Dukes, or Princes, or Kings, in Portugal. They are born in Switzerland (Duarte Pio), in Austria-Hungary (Duarte Nuno), in Germany (Miguel Januário). Just Maria Pia of Braganza was born in Portugal and she was born at the time of last Portuguese Monarchy. That's the facts. If you used the same criteria for treatment in all articles of the pretenders in question (Miguelist and Saxe-Coburg) so I could even agree with you. But you don't... or you think to reconsider that? Anjo-sozinho (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Singapore

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Count of Valentinois

Hi! Your edits to the article Count of Valentinois popped up on my STiki feed. I see edit summary you made, but I'm not clear on why the excessive blanking was necessary. The article certainly needed to cleanup, but the "excessive detail" is puzzling. There was a lot of detail, yes, but it seemed relevant. I didn't want to revert it without checking in with you, though. Prof. Mc (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Prof. Mc. Basically it seems to be a contentious issue. Recently, big additions to the article were made. but unfortunately not by someone who writes any understandable English. It was probably translated from Spanish by an online translation machine. Perhaps it is a good idea to look at the material and decide what can be salvaged and translated into understandable English, but for the time being I don't think it should stand the way it was. Thanks for you message. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I looked back one or two edits, but not very many. Thanks for keeping an eye on that page. Prof. Mc (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Duke of Valentinois

It was very hard work without disturbing, destroying and look foolish? Congratulations and welcome to the group of good editors and historians. Now we just need to reference each part very well but mostly write the historical truth of everything.

Thank you. --Siredejoinville (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of metallurgy in South Asia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seamlessness. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Need of explanation

Please explain what do you mean in WP:deny in your revert? And why you didn't consider that issue is under active discussion and pointless and unsubstantiated reverts won't change situation. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Reinstating material originally provided by a sock or banned user is denied. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

But that is not true policy and right thing. He made many good edits and they must not be reverted also in that revert is not only his edits but mine as well. Please read discussion here ►Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Question_about_blocked_editor and revert before controversial edits of LouisAragon --g. balaxaZe★ 16:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I've written a reaction on that discussion page. Basically your edit was initially removed as it's text was originally added by block evasion. In that case you can't simply revert back to the original or almost the original text. You should really take it to the talk page if you want part of that edit or all of it to be restored. You could also make your own text on one or more of the matters involved, but it's safer to talk first, given the history of the situation. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, as it seems I must to work for his "mistakes".--g. balaxaZe★ 17:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Apparantly so... It would also be wise policy to separate your own comment from his and not conflate them in one edit if possible. I'll take a further look at what text is yours and what text was earlier... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Issue is not only in text but in files, I specially created some maps for the wiki and he removed them from the article with no single explanation representing them to public as sockpuppet revert. --g. balaxaZe★ 17:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Gerard von Hebel You restored Aragon's reverts so I have to tell you more clearly that he said that he reverted sockpuppet's edits but those were not actual revert but manual and he reverted not only Damianmx's edits but my edits as well (I was remembering them) so I have a big doubt that he reverted other users edits with the same success, so please check all of 12,000+ bytes if you can. Considering my case it is already a fact that he removed not only blocked editors contribution (there must be some wiki policies about this).--g. balaxaZe★ 21:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abkhazia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abkhazia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Amedeo of Savoy head of the House

I'm Italian, I'm not a monarchist but I know perfectly that Amedeo is the head of the House. Here in Italy only the ignorant ones don't know that because of the gossip which follow too much Emanuele Filiberto. I put the website of Italian monarchists only for show something concrete. Jewels Jules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewels Jules (talk • contribs) 06:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jewels Jules, On Wikipedia we follow reliable sources, See WP:RS, not what we "perfectly know". Specially when we are dealing with contentious issues. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

So i found the Umberto II's letters which were send to Vittorio Emanuele. They say that the head is Amedeo. That's the original translation: http://www.crocerealedisavoia.it/files/lettere/19630718_UIIaVE_en.pdf You said we need concrete sources, so, I think that's pretty concrete. In this letter he says "...what I wrote you in 1960...", in 1960 Umberto wrote him that he couldn't change the secular laws of succession of the house. The laws of succession of the house say esplicitally that sons who marry without the permission of the father, loose all their rights. Is that enaugh? Jewels Jules (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Jewels Jules, there is presently (since 1946) no authority on earth that can settle this matter. Certainly not a website set up by monarchists of one or another persuasion, that is per definition not a reliable source. The only things we know is that Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples was the heir to the throne at the moment the monarchy ended, and that his claim is disputed by Amedeo. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Hebel, now I have some doubts about your conoscence of the events. In 1960 the famous italian gossip magazine "Chi" interview Vittorio Emanuele, who sayed he wanted to marry. Umberto read it and sayed to his son the house's laws of succession, Vittorio Emanuele decided to don't marry. In '66 another interwiew sayed that Vittorio Emanuele wanted marry with a non noble women. Umberto asked again and Vittorio Emanuele sayed was all invented. For marry without loose rights he made himself "Vittorio Emanuele IV of Italy" and with a "royal decrete" cancelled the law and, at finally he married. Umberto disapproved that and the succession passed to Amedeo. VIttorio Emanuele and Amedeo fought in tribunal for the use of the suriname "di Savoia", won Amedeo. And, according to me, can be a person who evades taxes, sell arms, have killed a person to be the king of a nation? I don't think. Jewels Jules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewels Jules (talk • contribs) 23:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Jewels Jules, after 1946 there was no king and there were no house laws anyone (not even Umberto II) were at power to interpret in any legal sense. We are just guessing at what would have happened if these authorities would still have been in place. The surname "di Savoia" doesn't come into it. All members of the House have that surname. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I again think you haven't understood. The surname "di Savoia" can be used only by the head and his sons. The surname of Amedeo before 2006 was officialy "di Savoia-Aosta". I explain you the events. Amedeo has got a little-medium wine company in Tuscany, where he lives and used like brand "di Savoia", his cousin claim that surname for his companies and accused Amedeo for violation of copiright. In tribunal Vittorio Emanuele won the first meeting, but lost the second and the third. The laws of the House are totally indipendent from the state. We need to separate Savoy and Italy in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewels Jules (talk • contribs) 09:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hunter Valley wine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hunter Valley wine. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Order of the Dutch Lion

I can finish the job for you. I didn't touch it for upwards of a week, but when nobody did anything to the category I assumed the change was accepted and went forward. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Should be dealt with now. I've moved the category back also - see Category:Recipients of the Order of the Dutch Lion.

As for Cat-a-Lot, you can have access to it, too - all you need to do is get the script. Hang on a sec and I'll see if I can remember where I got it - it's been a little while. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

OK - it's here: User:קיפודנחש/cat-a-lot.js. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much >User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao! I did a few manually... Does this mean the sub categories can be renamed back too? Because basically, the categories with "Dutch Lion" should disappear and be replaced by "Netherlands Lion". I'm afraid I'm no good at this stuff.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You edit-warred against two users, pretending that the latest discussion on the issue was in favor of one position, when the latest comment was in opposition. I don't care about the page title or the general, I don't speak Dutch, and I don't know you or the other guy who appeared at the talk page: I'm just attempting to enforce project policy and standards in the fact of persistent deception on your part. Aside from the RFC, which of course is an appropriate way to resolve the situation, I suggest that you stop now with suggesting that your position was uncontroversial, because persistent deception is grounds for sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Nyttend, I had simply not read the second section until later today, which was hardly a discussion but an isolated statement by one user, that went against the long standing name of the article, which was discussed in an actual discussion before on the same talkpage. Now I'm not saying that I did everything right, but I informed the users involved (the ones who made earlier edits to the article and the categories) of the situation and moved the article once, and a second time after your intervention, restoring the long standing name the article had for eight years. I frankly resent your qualifications like "edit warring", "pretending" and "persistent deception" and even the implicit talk of sanctions, which I frankly would not expect from an admin or moderator, and I suggest that you alter your tone in this matter. Never forget that we communicate here by typing to each other and to third parties, which is not the best way to actually communicate. It's a limited tool and misunderstandings come very, very easy. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

First Gentleman

See Néstor Kirchner#Post-presidency, the issue is described and referenced there. See also List of first gentlemen in the United States, for people holding this distinction in the US states. See also here, an article that discuss this for Bill Clinton, in case Hillary wins the elections. It says "Though he’d be smashing the glass floor for men in America by becoming the first gentleman (which would be his official title), Bill Clinton would be far from the world’s first first man.". I hope this makes it clear. Cambalachero (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Cambalachero, newspaper articles do not bring about official titles. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The "First lady" thing (and, by extension, the "first gentleman" in the case of female rulers) is not an official office, it's just a diplomatic thing. Cambalachero (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of Gibraltar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus?

Where is the consensus? The "consensus" based on your opinion or the consensus based on bibliographic information? You deleted factual references to placed the POV information ("assumed in her life"). That's not correct. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Anjo-sozinho|Anjo-sozinho]], That is based on comments by other users during this process and many other processes. Can you actually explain what is so different about your version, except the quote by Stair Sainty? Can you explain how your sources give an official name used from birth? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

...

archived.

......

archived

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Lithuania

Could you please take a look when you can? Some new litvinist appeared and keeps adding POV content. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sabbatino, I'll keep an eye on it. The article was last edited by you at this point, and therefore appears to be in order at this point. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does. I'm asking for your help, because I already reverted that user's edits 3 times today. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I see. I issued another (POV) warning to that customer. I do think, (but I'm not sure) that repetitive and warned blatant POV offenders, like this one, can be treated as vandals and that 3rr can be lifted, I'll look it up and I'll revert this guy next time. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sabbatino, he is 4rr now, and if we count Admiral Buba or whatever, even more. If I hear again from him I'll file a 3rr violation report and will also ask admins to look into sockpuppetry. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I miscounted. But he will be 4rr the next time around, so the result will be the same. It will be interesting to see if he realizes that... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sabbatino, good you removed his accusations from your talkpage. I almost did it for you as I have put a warning template on his talkpage about making false accusation. I expect Admiral Buba to turn up now.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You do realize I may be interpreted as acting as a meatpuppet on your behalf now, don't you ;-)

we'll both end up in the dock maybe! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You're not my puppet. I only asked for help. Someone should just report him. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I know Sabbatino, I'm just joking. Let's wait until the next incident so we have more beef to report them with. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI Sabbatino, a sockpuppet investigation concerning User:Admiral buba and User:Craft37by has been submitted by me here, as I think it is suspicious that they include each others text in their edits and Admiral buba was making another revert just after my conversation (see below) with User:Craft37by. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

He's back... – Sabbatino (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I've seen Sabbatino. I've added this to the talk page. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop vandalism according to Litvins and Belarus historical view, also Ukranian as well

Please stop your disruptive editing. You are saying about 'diversity of opinions', but you only saving the one opinion about GDL lecacy. So in fact you are acting opposite way. So I can describe it is as lie and duplicity. The articles that you are not allowing to edits have no something about neutral point of view, bacause it grounded in discussion of few points of few.

You clean up historical articles from any not-Lietuvan (in modern sense) line without any certain argumentation. And you deleted everything.

And that's when Grand Duchy of Lithuania article filled with the names of the princes with -as ending. But could you mention this kind of names in at least one chronicle? I am not. Same as the language. What's the proof that modern Lithuanian used the Duchy? There not, it just hypothesis and it's better for everybody to read about it not so uniquely. If I am wrong - please let me know the source proofs of this statements.

You edit's surely not grounded on Wikipedia neutral principals and very similar to vandalize what also supported by other cases, such as with Ukrainian below. If you will no stop this erroneous activity you will be forced to be blocked from editing due negative censorship and propaganda of one historical version without any evidence.

21:14, 09 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craft37by (talk • contribs)

Craft37by, opinions that are contentious or even fringe, although sometimes mentioned when due are not added to Wikipedia articles as true statements as they are not supported by reliable sources. Please refrain from making such edits to Wikipedia articles as it is considered disruptive editing. Also refrain from making accusations about vandalism as you have now done twice. It's also considered disruptive. Consider in the future to discuss your issues on the talkpages of the article in front of other editors instead. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Assault rifle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Assault rifle. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indian massacre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Indian massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:McCarthyism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:McCarthyism. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:North Yemen Civil War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:North Yemen Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Kajkavian language

Yes, it is true, you have to update article about Kajkavian language. Look at the Croatian article Kajkavski književni jezik. That can not be a factoid. --BrunoMed (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. Why are you doing this? Are you really so stupid or for no reason you hate Croats? Then you re not for Wikipedia, do something useful for Wikipedia on your language. And, please, source your stupidness. --BrunoMed (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

BrunoMed, Seems like a company website to me and not a reliable source. What about the other subsets of Croatian and Serbian? If you don't add them also, your edit is still unbalanced and will be challenged again. Furthermore, these academic sources still call it a dialect. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, my conclusion is that Wikipedia is doomed, because of Dutch people and people like you. Some sources call you, well, not too smart. --BrunoMed (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at your sourced and I have realized that you′re really, really stupid, I′m sorry to say that. These sources are twenty years old. Kajkavian language is language since 2015!!! Look at the Croatian page! --BrunoMed (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Slavic languages

You've passed WP:3RR on this. Suggest you self-revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User:NeilN, done. There remains a problem however I think... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

BrunoMed is on extremely thin ice. BrunoMed, it does not matter if you were polite "at first". You need to be civil all the time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

And this id*** can do whatever he wants against me? --BrunoMed (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Three days to read WP:CIVIL. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Dilling

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Dilling. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not a soapbox

Please don't remove academic sources.Xx236 (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My family comes from the GDL, do you? I have read hundreds of books about the GDL, have you?Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you present your sources on Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania? Xx236 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Xx236 , we do not add pointy statements to WP articles. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Order of Friars Minor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of Friars Minor. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iraq War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iraq War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Philippines v. China

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philippines v. China. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hindupur

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hindupur. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dersim massacre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dersim massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits to the sovereign states page

There is a lengthy discussion ongoing covering the issues that were the subject of your edits to the list of sovereign states page. There is no consensus to change the page to remove the bulleting of associated states or Serranilla bank and Bajo Nuevo bank, if you look through the discussion you will see I am not alone in this point of view. If you have a different point of view, I strongly suggest you contribute to the discussion on the talk page rather than edit warring in an attempt to force through changes that have no consensus as can clearly be seen in the ongoing discussion on the talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the particular issues here being discussed. There is a lot of talk about actual dependencies being bulleted but not these ones. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There are lengthy discussions involving both of these issues on the talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. XavierGreen (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

clarification needed

On the site en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Dore&action=history you deleted a chapter with the comment "Seems like a BLP issue to me." Please clarify why this seems so to you in the Talk section of the corresponding article before starting an edit-war. --Yukterez (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

--Yukterez Accusations against living people are under special scrutiny on WP. Read WP:BLP. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore already admitted that he spitted on Alex Jones on camera, so it is not just an empty accusation.

You can not simply refer to the policy in general without going into detail.

Before you delete the same passage twice please visit the talk section of the article.

--Yukterez (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Revert

Hello Hebel, you made some claims in your edit here. Could you please explain? Ziko (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ziko. First of all thank you for your elaboration and clarification on the monarchs of Germany article (which I also reverted). This is much clearer to me now. About the Chancelors article; the situation was somewhat more complicated because it involved a move. Apart from that, I thought that the lead became a little too top heavy for what is after all a list on Wikipedia. I also had some doubts about the introduction of the '48 '49 Ministery. Then there were some language issues as I seem to remember. Perhaps it was all a little bit too quick. If you want to reiterate some of the points, please do so on the talkpage and we can always look at text that can be reintroduced. I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for your reaction. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I'ven been busy about the period in the last years. In general, I could imagine to make the introduction somewhat shorter because is is just the introduction to a list... Ziko (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss these matters again there. I'll see if I can be of help. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

IP you've been reverting is banned

Hi, thought I'd tell you that 178.203.232.187 (talk · contribs) is a banned editor, see WP:PERUNBAN. Good work! Doug Weller talk 19:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Doug Weller thanks for your message. This guy was basically either just making stuff up and / or inserting fringe or OR material in several articles. It was mostly about comparative etymology (names of Gods or tribes) or related identification of ethnic groups with other historical populations. Some of the fringe stuff sounded somewhat familiar to me (Celts are Sarmatians or vice versa), because well... I tend to notice those things when I hear them somewhere because of my particular fields of interest. I've read the incident report and it is true what one user remarked that these things are often inserted quite unnoticed, because to many, they seem like innocuous edits... Stuff like that happens a lot. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it happens far too often. If you see this editor around (and I expect them back shortly with a new IP), let me know. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep my eyes open! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gary Cooper

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gary Cooper. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Deputy of the german president

Hi Hebel, I don´t want to do any "warring", I´m only adding relevant and correct information. Article 57 of the Grundgesetz provides that the president of the bundesrat deputizes the federal president. Not only if the president steps down, dies or such, but also for example if the president is abroad on a state visit, temporarily ill or something like this. So he has in fact a much more important role than for example the US-Vice President. I admit that this adds some information to the infoboxes, but that´s the way it is: The president of the bundesrat is elected only for one year and usually the office rotates between the states (so it can happen that a president has ten deputies during his terms or even more...). I (being german myself) think that this is pretty important information, but if you have a better idea, how id could be implemented in the articles, I would be glad if you would make proposition. Yours Alektor89 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alektor89 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Danke schön für deine Antwort hier Alektor89. Erstmals eine gutgemeinte Warnung. Mache so etwas nicht wieder den es kann dich in Schwierigkeiten bringen. Glaube mir, Ich war auch bei na mal dort.... I'm going on in English now if you don't mind, because my German is somewhat rusty. I don't use it often enough I'm afraid, and the dichotomy between "dich" and "dir" ("mich" or "mir") always confuses me.... My first though on your edits were: why should this be in the infobox? The infobox is not for excessive detail. Having said that I will of course have to consider the point you make. Is this person a deputy at all times or just when the President is incapacitated or not available. There is no Vice-President, American style, or whatever style in Germany. Just someone who has to rise to the occasion at some points. The President of the Bundesrat has no permanent title or function as deputy, as he just performs the function "qualitate qua" when the occasion arises and he also has no title to succeed to the Presidency. Just to deputise in certain cases and there is no permanent officeholder to that particular task as the Präsidium of the Bundersrat rotates. Perhaps this can better be added to the body of the article on the Presidency somewhere. Mentioning the fact that the Bundesratspräsident deputises for the Head of State in certain circumstances and of course in the case when there is no Bundespräsident, as we have seen twice in the last few years. But even then I don't think all office holders should be mentioned separately in every article on every Bundespräsident. Specially when no actual deputisation ever took place in the period of that President. People can look up who would have been the deputy in such a case on the article of the Bundesrat of Germany. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I got your point, thank you for the answer. Do you think it would be a better idea to add them to the list of the german presidents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_presidents) in a new column on the right side? That would not make the list that much bigger if smaller letters are used (The list needs a revision anyway, because the divison between partitioned germany and reunited germany is problematic, because it suggests reunited germany is an new formed state, which is not the case (the new states just joined the federal republic). but that´s another cup of tea...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alektor89 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eritrea

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eritrea. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

My edits

Hello sir Hebel Why reverting my edits in Wikipedia:WikiProject Berbers and Moussa Ag Amastan ‎and Ouarzazate ‎?
I created a Wikipedia:WikiProject Berbers/header and a new subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject_Berbers/Members
So why reverting my edits ?--Anẓar (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Lot's of contentious edits were made on articles like this lately. Can you explain your edit proposals on the talkpage? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

first of all I'm new in wikipedia

Where is the problem in my edits

This is the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject_Berbers/Members

This is the header Wikipedia:WikiProject Berbers/header

Where is the problem in this article

I just fixed the article

And where is the problem in this edit ?

The official name is Ouarzazate

The native name is ⵡⴰⵔⵣⴰⵣⴰⵜ

Other name is ورزازات

So where is the problem ??--Anẓar (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

My morale is broken now :( --Anẓar (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Anẓar Don't let it be. The same material, notably Ourzazate, was recently the subject of difficulties. I reacted in the supposition that they have returned. That seems not to be the case. I'm sorry about that. However mind encyclopedic language. Your edits on Moussa Ag Amastan are not encyclopedic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir,I am a human and humans make mistakes

Thank you for correcting my mistakes

If you see from another time a mistake notify me in my talk page--Anẓar (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

My edit in Talk:Abd_al-Mu'min

I'm sorry because I reverted your contribution two times
So we can't remove a WikiProject template or what ?--Anẓar (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Anẓar, I work from the assumption that these are placed by the people for whom the article is of interest, for whatever reason. The way I see it, I'm not in a position to argue about that, so I stay away from them and mostly restore them when third parties do want to argue about them. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response

And Sorry for the reverting--Anẓar (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Anẓar Thank you, sir for your remarks. I noticed that you are just beginning on the English language Wikipedia. I have also noticed that Berber issues have your special interest. There is nothing wrong with that, but you should know that ethnic related issues can sometimes become very contentious on Wikipedia. If you handle those with wisdom, patience, understanding and especially balance, you will fare well on Wikipedia. We need editors like that, specially when it comes to the quagmires of edits about ethnic groups and the rivalry between them. But also remember that neutrality doesn't mean that you can's state facts, just because other people don't like to hear or read them! I think you can become a very accomplished editor on this Wikipedia when you keep that in mind and I wish you great success! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful advices. I'm very glad that an experienced wikipedian give me such advices.

And Thank you for your time.

I find that there is a severe shortage of topics relating to Berbers, and all the Members of Wikiproject Berbers are inactif Except Soupforone. So I want to bring this Wikiproject life's.--Anẓar (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent reversions

Let me try to explain what I was doing.

On the three history pages, the user in question seems to be on a quest to cram Spartacus Educational links into as many pages as possible, with no other editing activity. This is usually not a good sign and many of these edits have already been reverted on the basis that this is not an RS.

On Evie Hudak, the edit is of low quality (filled with external links in the article body and in a tone of unthinking praise for the subject of the article) and from an account with a very obvious COI. Such an account should propose edits on the talk page for uninvolved editors to consider, not leap in with a big edit about how marvellous the subject of the article is.

Addendum - the history edits aren't even all that closely based on this apparently unreliable source. Karl Ernst, for example, takes a source that says that one person claimed years after the event that a given document was a forgery and extrapolates this to "The main reason for this was that researchers in the 1960s were able to show that the Karl Ernst confession claiming to be involved in setting fire to the Reichstag building had been forged". What? Pinkbeast (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinkbeast, thank you for explaining. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

So do you plan to take any action based on this explanation, please? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I assumed you had already reverted my edits. But I'll check if that is so. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinkbeast, I see you've left my edits untouched. I'm sorry I somehow thought they had already been reverted. I've reverted my edits with exception of the one in the Boris Yefimov article because, looking at the article once again, I think the episode as such, deserves mentioning. I'll still remove the link and will suggest other language. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Han Chinese

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Han Chinese. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Regnal dates of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

Last month you reverted an edit of mine at the above article with the edit summary "it was just a title". I believe these sections of the infobox are not supposed to show dates that a pretender held a title; they are supposed to show regnal dates. Otherwise, Michael I of Romania's infobox would give dates to the present, since he still uses the title, and Albert, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein's infobox would give the dates 1921-1931 for his "reign" (even though he did not actually reign over anything). 1947 is therefore a more appropriate date because that is the year that the Empire dissolved. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Celia Homeford and sorry for the delay in replying. The point of my edit was that "Emperor of India" was, between 1876 and 1948, one of the titles of the British Monarch and not more than that. What dissolved in 1947 was not in any way a separate Empire. British India (including the protected Princely states) was a colonial construction that was ruled by the British monarch (and his British government), who, during the period mentioned, also held this title. It was not a separate monarchical institution. The same goes for the period thereafter when the King in right of India (as George VI was from 1947 to 1950), kept using the title mentioned until 1948. That is the reason why I don't see the relevance of using the year 1947 as an end date for an "institution" that basically never was one. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Seborga

Hello, you see the corresponding article in Italian.--Civa61 (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it sourced in a way we can understand as reliable? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The official site of Municipality of Seborga [1] and the newspaper "La Stampa" [2].--Civa61 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Civa61, is there a genuine and scholarly work of history that actually confirms the status of the abbey and the status of Seborga in it. This all seems to be derived from the claims of His Tremendousness, which are not really substantiated. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Menelik II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Menelik II. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alexander the Great

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alexander the Great. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Diesel engine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diesel engine. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New York

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New York. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Answer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867#User:_Hebel_deleted_the_reference_sentence_about_the_passport --Enginerfactories (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

New York

The article, New York, is about the U.S. state of New York. The link in the article is clearly referring to New York City, and therefore should point there. bd2412 T 20:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message bd2412. I see to which article the link is now. So I will not contest your revert. I added something to the discussion there earlier (after my own revert) and I see now where the two articles link at this point. I gather that discussion is still ongoing however. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cedar Fire (2003). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Er ist wieder da

Qais13's sockpuppet's have come back. (I'm also pretty sure that this is him).--JorisEnter (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

East Timor and usage of "their"

Okay, I'm not going to insist, because I don't want to get bored with that, this was the last time I tried to do something that I would find more appropriate. --B.Lameira (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

General consensus (about official name) is not two other people, including yourself. --B.Lameira (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

B.Lameira, consensus is not about "their", since you obviously introduced it and ignored the fact that it was reverted. Consnesus is about the other issue. Please take note of that!Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the East Timor page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)