User talk:Renamed user abcedarium

Welcome!

Hello, Renamed user abcedarium, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Bhadani 13:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Harry Potter (20 April 2006 - Present)
• History and other areas (27 April 2006 - Present)

Our discussion had got very off my original post to Reaves, so I thought it better to post reply here. I can't remember now where I saw the comment which I alluded to, about Rowling writing Dumbledore as a suicide bomber. So I can't be certain why I took the comment that way, or whether I am right. She said something like 'it is far far too late to change things now', and I think the conversation was why I took it that way. Plus the fact that it is essentially what is going on, and that actually heroes dying for a cause is a traditional literary theme. 'It is a far, far, better thing I do now than I have ever done before', (er, famous quote by I'm not sure where from ! tale of two cities, set in revolutionary France?) It is perhaps ironical that suicide bombers are currently demonised, yet volunteers leading raids to almost certain death in WW1 got medals. Rather a matter of perspective. But I suspect Rowling is a bit sensitive about Dumbledore's hero's sendoff because of the recent London bombing.

As to Rowling and book 7. I am not pessimistic. She has been criticised for erratic plotting, yet I do not see any major inconsistencies. There is a traditional approach in some books for the perspective in a book to jump about, maybe a few chapters about one set of heroes, then some about a different lot. Here she had 7 books, and although people have tried to draw out similarities between them, I suspect she tried to vary the plot as much as possible between each. Basic plot is always the same, Harry clobbers Voldemort AGAIN, but she has done a very much better job of making each book distinct than have quite a few authors I have read. It may be people are worrying because she seems to take up a theme then completely drops it in the next book, but this may be deliberate. So far (...) I don't see anything to suggest her plotting is anything other than brilliant. But that judgement will depend on the degree of minute plot detail she can seamlessly wrap up in the last book. She did comment on TV that it was going well, but she was amazed how many details there were to include. I think she meant exactly this. It could also have implied that there exists an essentially complete version of the book, but with lots of work needed to insert little detail. Might even have people checking it by now. Who knows.

She may not like fantasy, but she seems to have an excellent grasp of traditional myths, and studied it at university. I think it possible that her starting point was the tale of Beowulf, who I am sure lent his name to Dumbledore. I think her famous train journey where this supposedly began was her idling away the time seeing if she could think of a modernised version of Beowulf, which she had had to study. She actually won an award for HP where someone else won an award for a new translation of Beowulf. People asked her how she thought of her book compared to the other winner. Whether the book started with Beowulf or not, there is too much of that story in HP for her not to have included it deliberately, (but she meant us to know that, she used the name, almost all HP names are significant, so she must have been dead pleased). Now, I would love to get that into an article, but she won't say anything about it until after the last book, if she ever does.

I expect the last book will be much more like the others than people think, as far as its 'feel' goes. It will probably go outside of school, and sounds as though Voldemort will actually get to do some battle fighting on stage. Her prose reads ok to me, but it is perhaps what has been most criticised. I imagine she gets better with practice, so I don't imagine it will be worse than what we have so far, which is perfectly fine. She has always been writing 'popular' books, not ones where you need a dictionary to check the meaning of words. Dumbledore will no doubt make an appearance somehow, but if her claim than dead means dead,dead,dead, is really justifed, probably he will not be taking a very active part. But then, actually, he often has not. He has always been working behind the scenes, and i can easily see how Rowling would be able to introduce 'plans' he has already made and told people about. I think Snape is due for a total character turn around by the end of the book, and despite her protestations that she does not lie when she answers questions, I think she will be seen to have made some very constructive answers to certain past questions. Sandpiper 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me anything you know about former German & French teacher Dr F P Gopsill at Wirral Grammar. Also, at your time in the school, what languages could be learnt?, and what other things do you know about the history of Classics and Languages teaching and the subjects taught in the school's history, since 1931? I would really like it if you could respond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aconnell1993 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

just had a quick look at it, and there seem to be a few errors here and there. I don't see any reason to suppose Siius was miserable at 16. He seems to have always enjoyed himself. Perhaps what is written in the article is not what you mean:The thing is, that the line you put in is not necesarily mean he was miserable solely at home. It can be read as an add on point that he was miserable always. But I am not convinced he was necessarily miserable at home. He might have enjoyed baiying his parents untill they finally threw him out.Sandpiper

Which bit didn't you like about James trying to impress Lily? that's what it says. He keeps looking at her, even gets her to laugh, and then is really pissed when she tells him off. can't understand why she isn't impressed.

This is not stated explicitly, but step by step. James writes her initials, he keeps looking at the girls ,sys so every now and then, gets her to laugh at him sttacking Snape, and finally is shocked that she is not on his side. His loving her is explicit, his disappointment at her not being pleased by what he has done is also.Sandpiper

You claimed they attacked Snape because James " wished to impress Lily Evans, who James was in love with." There is no reason to think that - James responded to Sirius' complaints that he was 'bored' by saying, "This'll liven you up...look who it is...". They then attack Snape and mock him, before attacking him with magic. None of this could be reasonably considered to be an attempt to impress Lily, especially since James would presumably have known her character. Yes, James had a crush on her - 'in love' would be a little extreme - but there is no reason to think that the attack got her angry with him was meant to be an attempt to impress her. MS

Rowling made a comment re Lily telling James to get lost, that women do not always say what they mean. I take this to mean that the Lily's repudiation of James is not precisely what it appears.

Some more excerpts (OOPch28 SWM): James ...was now tracing the letters LE....Harry noticed that his father had a habit of rumpling up his hair as though to keep it from getting too tidy, and he also kept looking over at the girls by the waters edge...Snape lay panting on the ground. James and Sirius advanced on him, wands raised, James glancing over his shoulder at the girls at the waters edge as he went... 'Leave him alone!' James and Sirius looked around. James' free hand immediately jumped to his hair. It was one of the girls from the waters edge..Harry's mother. 'All right Evans? said James, and the tone of his voice was suddenly pleasant, deeper, more mature...'leave him alone'..'I will if you go out with me, Evans..Go out with me and I'll never lay a wand on old Snivelly again. ..I wouldn't go out with you if... Bad luck Prongs, said Sirius... Apologise to Evans! James roared at Snape...youre as bad as he is [Lily]...'What? yelped James 'I'd never call you a you know what.' 'Messing up your hair because you think it looks cool' [Lily]...'what is it with her? said James, trying and failing to look as though this was a throwaway questionm of no real importance to him.

He does everything to impress her. Now, why he thinks it is going to work is quite another matter. My guess is he knows Lily has just had a row with Snape, but I don't know that. Notice how upset he gets when Lily is insulted, and that Sirius knows what he was trying to do. Likely the whole school knew. Sandpiper

Where do we learn animagi are invulnerable to werewolf bites when transformed? Sandpiper 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'a werewolf is only a danger to people, does not mean that 'transformed animagi are invulnerable to werewolves'.I didn't understand it mean that, and not did others. I don't know if anyone has asked rowling about it. Sandpiper 18:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

found you this quote 'Sirius was bleeding, there were gashes across his muzzle and back...' P.279 UK poa CH20. So Siruis suffered harm from lupins attack as a werewolf. Not invulnerable then. Sandpiper

I take it then that your definition of 'not dangerous' includes animals with a demonstrable ability to rip you to pieces. Tell that to the relatives of the last keeper mauled to death in a wildlife park. You can try to explain that the animagi are immune to being turned into werewolves, but you can't say that a werewolf is not dangerous to an animagi in animal form. That werewolf injured a dog as big as a bear. What exactly would have happened if he had a go at the rat? rat mince? Sandpiper

It's clear that James had a crush on Lily, yes, and those quotes show that. What they don't show is any indication that his bullying of Snape was to impress Lily, rather than to alleviate his and Sirius' boredom or because he hated Snape (both clearly stated in the text). Blackmail, perhaps - "go out with me, and I'll never lay a wand on old Snivelly again". But there is no reason to think it is to impress her. [MS]

Er, so why so many references in the text to his keep looking at the girls, and his obsession with one girl in particular. It is woven through the whole scene that James is interested in how she reacts to his actions. It even ends by explicitly saying that her reaction is important to him. Incidentally, it is incorrect that James and Sirius attacked Snape. Sirius only tagged along, James started it and the article ought to make that clear. James is the real bully in this scene.

As for the werewolf thing - Lupin said, "A werewolf is only a danger to people". Since people and animals are equally at risk of being shredded, he can only have been talking about the werewolf curse - which, as we saw when he attacked Sirius in PoA, didn't infect Sirius when in his animagical form. Michael Sanders 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

er, yes, exactly, so you cannot say that (animagi are invulnerable to werewolf bites when transformed), because they simply aren't. They may be protected from the magical aspect, presumably because they are not human, but they are not proteced from the physical aspect of the attack. Sandpiper 19:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing the Richard the 1st article, the crossbowman "Dudo" is mentioned by that name in a 30 line poem by William the Breton, if you do not have access to this source; then I am sorry, but until you can justify your edit, stick to what you know. Bob2006ty 15:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Renamed user abcedarium! I think that you're a really great editor, so, do you think that you could sign my autograph book, maybe? It would be an honor if you did! See ya later, Renamed user abcedarium! Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dorea Black section of the Black family tree (Harry Potter) article, the more I look at it the more the WP:OR issue bothers me. I know you at one time you were not overly fond of this policy, but overall I believe it is a good policy. I was wondering if you would be willing to either: rework it so doesn't have theories, delete it, or have some editors get together at it's talk page and discuss what should be done. (Duane543 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding your last revert about Dorea Black[edit]

Please note that Original Research is defined as something which :

• "introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
• defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms;
• introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or
• introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or INTERPRETATION of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article."

As far as Dorea Black is concerned, the section stating that "Dorea's son would be James Potter" is indeed original research, because:

• It is a theory, and an original idea (it has never been stated anywhere on the family tree or by JKR herself that Dorea was Jame's mother. It is an original idea proposed by the editors of the article).
• this theory or idea is not cited using a reliable source (and a reliable source is not other theories on personal fansites).
• It is of course an analysis of one of the entries of the family tree, it's a synthesis of various informations form this family tree and the books, and it's an interpretation of these facts: the interpretation has been built by linking between them various elements which have not yet been officially linked, and this precise "link" might prove false with further information in book 7.

"Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source." -> which is the case here.

Some might argue that the "original research article states that "straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data" are not original research. That's right, however in this particular situation, the "logical deductions" are creating new content, and giving a new signification to the original material used. In other words, these deductions are used to "advance a position", which is not supported by the "straightforward calculation" exception.

In other words, the section about Dorea Black is still original research and has nothing to do here. Thanks to people for not starting another edit war again. Either you can justify your edits, or you can't, and if you can't, please do not make them at all. Folken de Fanel 12:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you're not willing to cooperate for the good of Wikipedia, I think it's necessary to remind you of some little things:

The version you're continuously restoring contains absolutely no element that have or can be attributed to an external source. It's mainly the own speculations, calculations and deductions of the editor of the article.

Fan theories, even if presented outside of Wikipedia, are no more than theories, and Wikipedia's rule of neutral point of view doesn't allow you to present these theories as likely to be true, nor to expand on them, to develop them or anything.

Please note that Original Research is not only the own speculations of the editor. It's content that doesn't originate from a reliable source (ie which originates from an unreliable source), and fan websites are not reliable source according to WP criteria. Folken de Fanel 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From now on, you are forbidden to write any message on my talk page, especially the provocative and full of lies messages that are your speciality.

Remember, I do not want to hear from you anymore. Mind your own business, and if you try to provoke me again, like you did some weeks ago, be sure it will backfire at you. Folken de Fanel 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor and I was unaware of the policy about linking to external .com references and have removed them. However, I think the images of these museum figures provide a lifelike reference to the subjects at each particular age. I obtained proper permission to use the pictures and added them to Wikimedia Commons under the CC attribution share-alike license for others to use as well. Mr. Stuart is the artist and should be at least acknowledged in the same way as a portrait painter. Mr. d'Aprix is the photographer and must be referenced under the terms of the CC attribution license. With the current caption, the image should not violate any Wikipedia guidelines. I respectfully request that you refrain from removing these images from Wikipedia articles in the future. Mharrsch 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you have appointed yourself gatekeeper of what types of art are suitable for inclusion in an article about any particular person. These figures are not "dolls" as you might be so willing to disdain, (in fact one figure represents months of work and if produced on request commands over $60,000 USD each) but meticulously researched representations of the person at a particular point in history and are included in several museum collections across the United States. They are certainly far more lifelike than most of the rather two-dimensional portraits produced at the time and give readers a more realistic view of the person discussed. I am also disturbed by your arrogance in dismissing a work of art simply because it is not widely known. I thought the internet was a place where everyone could have a chance to demonstrate their creativity. You obviously subscribe to the narrow-minded traditional approach that only elitist-recognized work is deemed worthy to be shown in a public forum. I fear there are many dusty, moth-eaten exhibits around the world that are taking up valuable exhibit space because of stogy curators who share your inflexible mindset. Mharrsch 14:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious. Why did you remove the link about the Bourbons of India?

At least please give an explanation.

--Malaiya 00:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:

• http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/1998-02/0886979312
• http://genealogy.euweb.cz/capet/capet37.html
• http://genroy.free.fr/bourbon.html
• http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaArchaeology/message/2878

The family was known before the book by Prince Michael of Greece.

--Malaiya 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bourbons of India are mentioned in "India and Its Native Princes: Travels in Central India and in the Presidencies of Bombay and Bengal By Louis Rousselet, Charles Randolph Buckle", 1875.

--Malaiya 19:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that I erred regarding the Sorting Hat being a Griffindor relic (btw which book is that line from?) but I'm still not convinced you phrased that sentence unequivocally. The impression I got from reading the paragraph in question (in the book) was that the sword was what Dumbledore was thinking of when he glanced at the shelf or case. There was no explicit mention of the sorting hat so I think that it should be expressed in a separate sentence. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zain Ebrahim111 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My apologies for not including an edit summary, I was in the process moving it down to the bottom of the page and standardizing it. Atropos 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes more sense about the regents, with implies that their consort had some sort of power, which was its intent I'm sure. For consorts, should I include with and a link to the actual regent? As to your second point, I take it last names (such as d'Albret), should be included, but "of Navarre" or "of Austria" should be excluded? Atropos 23:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. I get all of my information from the articles themselves, and the ones that were there before I started working on it said House of Capet. Atropos 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; perhaps you forgot to supply a summary for this edit, but it's a little rude to revert other peoples' edits without explaining why.

I deleted the section for being (in my view) impossible to rewrite in a manner conforming to WP:CITE and WP:OR, primarily because the Harry Potter series does not have omniscient narration — we never really see inside Sirius Black's head. I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter. — Feezo (Talk) 03:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Don't know if you noticed my post on HOB chat re the dates of Cygnus Black. HP lexicon has revised them to 1929-1979, so he now dies in the same year as Regulus and his brother/Reggies father Orion Black. This appears to be information from the film set version of the tree (according to a mention on red hen). I havn't been able to pin down exactly what has gone on, I think I once saw some news posted on Mugglenet, but I don't know whether it is now gone or is still archived somewhere, but anyway I never read it. Anyway, we are still carrying his old dates. Do you have a view on what to do about this? Sandpiper 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC) ~Ok, I have sent an email to lexicon requesting further info.[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Matilda of Scotland. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you., Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders, I was giving you a good faith warning about WP:3RR. As I'm not in violation of 3RR and know perfectly well what it is, posting the same message on my talk page is pointless and petty. Would you rather I report you on WP:3RR? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the page four times, Sanders. That's a violation. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first reversion, of 14:26, March 20, 2007, is interpretable as a revert, since you took it page to earlier content, on Dansbarnesdavies (21:24, January 22, 2007) (subject matter Edith v Matilda). I certainly would not have made this revert, as I've seen many receive blocks for this. I agree you would be very unlucky to get blocked for this revert, but it is plausible. Anyways, please understand that I gave you the above warning in good faith, and have no interest in a quarrel, only in improving the article. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasle wording? I am not sure what it mean. While I am interested in that period it is not effecting my opinions one way or the other. I do not care whether he is or is not Henry's child. I am not related to the guy. Currently, the dates as to when the affair started and when it ended between Henry VIII and Mary Boleyn is inconculsive. Therefore, although, the source is evidence that he could have been born in 1526, it is not proof of his paternity one way or the other. Nor should the sentence even suggest that. There is a dispute between historians as to the real accurate dates of the affair. And, even if his birth date was 100% proven there is still no way to positively identify his real father as the affair dates are unknown. Unless, there is a DNA test. Perhaps it would be better to remove the "date" part and only say his paternity is inconculsive. I hope my reason makes more sense to you. Virgosky 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael - just a gentle reminder: stating in the Horcrux article wording like "It has been suggested that Voldemort only discovered that it had been destroyed..." appears to constitute Weasel Wording. As a rule of thumb, if the statement cannot stand alone as factual without opening it with a conditional preamble like Some fans believe... or Critics argue that... or It has been said that..., then it is probably not encyclopedic in terms of the topic under discussion itself. Please review the Avoid Weasel Wording article for some good guidelines. If you are going to add fan and critical opinions to an article, then it probably belongs in a separate "Fan reaction" or "Critical views" section, and not in the main descriptive part of the text, which is supposed to be purely factual and verifiable, defining the topic encyclopedically with a neutral tone. I do not personally have a problem with "us" documenting what a significant portion of the HP fan base might believe, or non-canonical statements that critics might publish, but I believe such matters should be segregated from the definitive description part, which ought to remain purely canonical (from Rowling), and not be infected with outside views without a wall of separation (that is a separate section). I understand you have found a new "reliable source" containing all sorts of original research that we have taken to posting as now "encyclopedic", due to arguments back on the Hallows page. These recent edits are so unlike you that I am a bit startled and confused - I thought someone had hijacked your screen name. Anyway I hope and trust this is not about making a point with other editors who have engaged you in battle over OR and such, which is a practice frowned upon. Thanks for your attention, have a great weekend. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: I think perhaps the proper way of presenting John Granger's published analyses within the Harry Potter articles would be to present clearly, in-situ, that they are his views, and not necessarily canonical, Rowling-based material. For example, as a parallel, if we were discussing English naturalist Charles Darwin's various theories on evolution, and especially those published in his book On The Origin of Species, and then presented additional different-view material that was not from Darwin but from someone else, but still on the general theory of evolution, then we would write that in a separate contrasting section. Something like this: "Dr. Stephen Jay Gould reworked and extended Darwin's evolutionary principles by revising a key pillar in the central logic of Darwinian evolution, by presenting Punctuated equilibrium in his book The Panda's Thumb... " (and then elucidating on about Gould's variations on Darwin's theories). So for Horcruxes, we could legitimately state something like, (again in a separate section) "Esteemed University Professor John Granger of the Muggle Institute for Advanced Potter Studies suggests in his book Who Killed Albus Dumbledore? that ..." (and then presenting his original theories and analyses). This approach is clearer and more encyclopedic (and probably less antagonizing) than just blurting out his controversial theories mixed right in with the non-controversial canonical Rowling-stated material, and finishing it off with a tiny footnote stating the page number of his new book, which hardly anyone else has a copy of anyway. I'm simply trying to find a way where we can include your thoughts, and how they should be presented for consideration, and yet cut back on the edit reversion / original-research wars, which would seem to be intractable at this point. Thanks again for your attention. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo boy, I see it has already started again. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

OK I must have missed something about Granger's material in the fury of the edit reversion wars. I thought we were discussing posting material from a published book. The Self Published Source section from the Attribution policy states...

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually not acceptable as sources (see Exceptions below).

Exceptions - As mentioned above there are a few specific situations in which a self-published source can be considered reliable. These include...

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; second, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

If Granger's material is on an essentially personal web site run by Granger, and there is no peer review or other fact-checking (difficult for speculative original research about a fictional Potter universe), then I can see the cause for a strong difference of opinion. I still think we can consider posting Granger's theories in relevant, but they must be demoted to the status of regular (if well organized and sometimes well defended) fan speculation, not expert opinion. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the Update[edit]

I can accept this. I had the impression, in looking over the extended arguments, that Granger's Deathly Hallows-related work was basically posted on his blog page, where he published his theories on (ergo self-published speculation, and possibly disallowed as a reliable source); and then he also published a book on similar HP-related topics. If he indeed published a book with relevant material suitable for posting in the HP articles, and it has been (or can be) critically reviewed, and it contains high quality deductions based on the canonical Rowling materials, then I believe this is the sort of material that we can report on in the articles. I still insist that it should be segregated into in separate sections within the article - perhaps with titles like "Fan-based theories and critical reaction". We can expand the articles (and improve the overall relevance and quality) to include Granger's therories, not as canonical in the HP universe, but as verifiable logical deductions quoted from a published source (reliable or otherwise), keeping a neutral tone and POV, by stating again that this is Granger's work, and not Rowling's. It is original research on the part of Granger, but not us, so we can post it, just as we would report on any other new research efforts regarding, for example, particle physics or curing cancer. We need to take care not to sound like we are promoting Granger's work - thus pushing a POV agenda, but we also do not want to sound as if we are "in opposition" to Granger's views. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael and Folken and Sandpiper (etc).: The rules for writing articles about fiction are discussed at WP:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and at related articles linked there. Please step back, and take some time to study those policies and guidelines at your earliest convenience. The policy on writing about fiction states: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". Mr. Granger's work would qualify as sourced analysis, I believe. I agree that Granger's work is speculative and original research, but it is NOT original research or speculative for us to discuss his analyses in the articles, with proper sourcing for verifiability. He is not just any fan, so this does NOT open the door to just anyone posting their original research. The Wikipedia policy not only ALLOWS us to present critical analyses of works of fiction, it essentially REQUIRES us to do so, to make good articles. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on Horcrux. You are also warned about edit warring on Regulus Black. Please take the time to review our WP:3RR policy, and note that a content dispute, or dispute about sourcing, does not justify violating WP:3RR (except in WP:BLP cases, which this is not). This is your 4th block in 3 months. Be advised that if you keep violating our policies, your blocks will become progressively longer. I hope you use the time off to carefully consider your options and future conduct here. Thanks, Crum375 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop unilaterally changing the name of this page. There have been two discussions about the name on the talk page, one in June 2005, the other in January 2006. The name "Marie Antoinette" is the one which has received consensus. One editor does not have the right to overrule that consensus, even if he thinks other people are wrong. If you think there should be a change, please discuss it on the talk page. Noel S McFerran 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the naming conventions since I actively work on them (as much cannot be said about you at this time. I am also well aware (as is most of the WP community) that naming conventions for monarchs do not trump a universal name such as Marie Antoinette. For the sake of this community, cease your antics. I have no patience to entertain your "explanations" to me when I have been dealing with this for years. You are in the wrong here. You still have an opportunity to turn yourself around. "We" don't name her "of Austria". You do. Charles 04:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am separating the redirects. Please do not move the pages until I am at least done, okay? Charles 16:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you keep reverting back edits on these pages which are historically inconsistent. It is wrong to state that Marie Antoinette was Joséphine's predecessor as 'Empress of the French'. Although she was certainly her predecessor as consort to the French Head of State she should be listed as so in a SEPERATE box from the title 'Empress of the French'. This makes things far more clearer to the average viewer!

But you don't seem to get the point- this isn't about a change of sexes or even the reversion to an old title, but the creation of an entirely new one which must be elaborate - it is the same on other monarchical pages such as the Queen Mother etc. who was the last Empress of India.

The title 'Empress of the French' also ceased to exist - it wasn't used after Marie Louise until Napoleon III's wife! And before Joséphine, Marie Antoinette wasn't called 'Empress of the French'. It is exactly the same with 'Empress of India' - Queen Victoria was the first - or why don't you go through and imply that her predecessor, William IV was known as 'Emperor of India'?

The ancien régime monarchy was something UTTERLY different from the Napoleonic - Napoleon etc. and historians in general most definitely do not see the two as something sequential! It is therefore VITAL that we distinguish the titles as is custom on other pages on Wikipedia. The title 'Empress of the French' just like 'Empress of India' did not exist prior to 1804 and I am not refuting your case that there was a 'Queen of the French' but that is something fundamentally different and was abolished in 1792!

And I am indeed showing succession if you'd only bother to look! I am perfectly in keeping with the protocol demanded by Wikipedia as are the other pages of titular succession. And I haven't 'made up' a title - I have italisised it implying that it was not a title!

The intro line generally gives the native form and anglicizations are used elsewhere. Charles 11:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that there is not a Marie Louise of Austria, why is there a Marie Antoinette of Austria? The name was given in the first lines, as is standard. The point of the matter is that there are references to a Marie Louise of Austria but much fewer for a Marie Antoinette of Austria. Marie Louise is Archduchess Maria Ludovica in the first line of the text and she is also known as Marie Louise of Austria. That's why it's okay. Charles 11:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is usage for Archduchess Marie Louise of Austria. That is just one way by which she is commonly known. Sorry, I didn't choose common names. Charles 12:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German form of name[edit]

Do you know if the empress was Maria Luisa or Maria Ludovica in her native Austria? The intro to the article currently uses both forms. Charles 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do now recall the practise of christenings with with Latin names. I think that it should be noted somehow that this was the practice rather than someone thinking that it is a mistake. Charles 19:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there is no set convention for the changes in title/house. Preferably to me, the incumbent at the time would be listed as they were titled and any successor with a different title would just be listed with the changed title in parenthesis. Currently, with Marie Antoinette, I feel that there are way too many title changes going on. One box should say:

• Queen of France and Navarre (1774-1791)
• Queen of the French (1791-1792)
• Queen of France and Navarre (1792-1793)

There are no interventing consorts above.

Then it should say succeeded by: Joséphine de Beauharnais (Empress of the French) (as it currently seems to stand). The titular title can remain separate.

I think it's preferable to show people succeeding people, even if the title changes. A person succeeding themselves is nonsensical to me. The status of the country did not change as would be the case in a place like Baden (margraviate to grand duchy) or Prussia (duchy to kingdom). But that's my opinion. Charles 12:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Jeanne is the form used most often for this princess. Yes, it is odd (because her sister is almost always treated as "Maria" right beside her), but that is how it is. Charles 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no. And, before you start an edit war, which from your history I can see you are good at it. I am cleaning up the article. I fixed the reference section so that people will know who's information comes from where. I also added in which historians suggest what. And, if you actually read the article you could see that several sentences were repeated several times. Virgosky 16:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really should stop getting so angry and accusing people of things. The sources are in there and just because you do not like where they does not mean they are being removed. These are not your articles and this is not your website.Also, you can not say "most historians" without sourcing and saying which ones say what. Two people are not "most historians". Also, in the part where it says "Mary's defenders say" that should not be in there it is not sourced. Furthermore, unless you can source more historians, Weir and Ives are the only two who say Catherine Carey was born later. Virgosky 17:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am trying to point out which historians say what. Weir and Ives believe she was not Henry's child. How is wanting more sources for historians to prove she is not his child POV? If you say "most historians" you have to back it up. Virgosky 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing me of things that make no sense. What are you talking about? Are you even reading what I am saying? I said it was during this period Henry fell in love with her and it was. It does not matter whether you say it was later or during that period. Either one works. So why are you fighting with me for no reason? Please source the exact dates of when the affair started and ended. Virgosky 17:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your POV. Do not remove sourced information. Is that not what you are always yelling at other editors about? So, it is okay for source information to stay if you agree with it? However, if it is something you do not agree with, then it okay to remove the information whether it is sourced or not? Sounds like POV thinking to me. Anyway, he is a notable person since the Britian's Real Monarch and someone created an article for him. Therefore, there is no harm in mentioning him. Again, do not tell others what to do when you clearly do not always follow the rules either. Virgosky 19:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from now and that is all you had to say. For a minute, I thought you were arguing with me just to fight as we have disagreed several times on the management of this article. I assumed many people would know who he is now based on the documentary, but you make a good point. Virgosky 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would but you would continue to delete it and start another edit war. I would prefer to see some articles on this site not subjected to your edit wars. Virgosky 20:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Virgosky 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you removed my explanation when you replied to my comment but I've replaced it. Please don't edit my posts. Leebo ^T/C 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for making some corrections to my succession boxes on various royal houses throughout Europe. I too am a History student and very passionate about it. Keep up the good work. -Prezboy1 00:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on Talk:Horcrux: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Folken de Fanel 01:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Horcrux. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you.

Please note that I have modified the article according to what has been concluded in the talk page of the article: it has become obvious that WKD was a dubious source who couldn't be used in the article (as non-notable, self-published, unreliable, too speculative). Even T-Dot noted that "projecting theories into the 7th book is treading on very thin ice". You then failed to provide enough arguments to convince me and others of the reliability and notability of the book, and you just stopped answering. All you have said until now was not based on any official admissibility criterion of Wikipedia, but on erroneous qualifications of the book (qualifying mere fans as "professionals", mistaking speculations on future works for text analyses, qualifying John Granger, someone who has not proven particularly notable for guessing plots of future HP books in the past, as someone in his "relevant field", etc). Clearly, you've not "won" the debate. But even now, no one prevent you to find convincing justifications for the inclusion of WKD...

So the main problem with your revert is that, while I have provided a compromise (keeping a mention of WKD) which also took into account the obvious and well-argumented opposition to the inclusion of such obscure and unsubstanciated theories from such a dubious (self-published and non-notable) source, you just ignored everything that have been said on the matter in the last week...You refused to acknowledge the lengthy debate which, for now, has convincibly established WKD was not a valid source.

Worse, you've deliberately ignored my request that anyone who would want to revert my version should justify such a revert (your edit summary remained desperately blank).

It is now clear you're working against the general consensus, deliberatly scorning the others' opinions to impose yours.

Now I know you'll be tempted to start another edit war, and revert my edits a third time. But please realize it's not been 2 weeks that your last 48 hours 3RR block ended, and since then you've already been involved in 2 (if you continue this one in a bad way) other edit wars on the very same article that you were blocked for. And that the admin that last blocked you specifically asked you to "use the time off to carefully consider your options and future conduct here".

Turning the edits on the horcrux article into yet another edit war will be very bad for you. I'm sure you're aware that you don't necessarily have to go to the 4th revert to be blocked, if your reverts are openly disruptive: and ignoring a general consensus and refusing to provide enough justification is bad-faithed enough for your possible future reverts to be concidered disruptive.

So please don't think you can continue to be on the verge of breaking the 3RR, stopping at your third, and that it will all be all right for you. You're deliberately ignoring an admin's warning concerning your behavior, deliberately ignoring a full week of debate (in which the more convincing opinion that was developed was the "no WKD one", and in which you also failed to provide any convincing argument -and which you've stopped to contribute to-), deliberately ignoring a user's request that you justify any revert you'll do, and such blind reverts won't help you in any way.

So please, take some time to think about all this, instead of blindly reverting a general consensus and using force to impose a content that only you want...Folken de Fanel 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the article isn't blocked, thus I can't see why I wouldn't be "permitted" to edit it. A whole week was not enough for you to find any convincing argument. However, during this week, it was convincibly established that WKD was not to be included. The fact that the debate is (according to you) still ongoing doesn't mean you can artificially block the article , prevent any improvement to it, and ignore any request of justification for your reverts. Folken de Fanel 18:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please realize that by reverting my edits, you were the one who started an edit war. I have reverted nothing, I have merely improved the article, but you blindly reverted me in an agressive way and you were perfectly unable to justify any of your reverts, even though I had specifically asked you to justify them. You have started the edit war. Folken de Fanel 19:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC) I noticed that Folken also edits very robustly on the french wiki HP. (folken was blocked 48hrs this morning.) Sandpiper 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if you removed the ridiculous template warnings Folken keeps giving you, there wouldn't be any one who could possibly care. John Reaves (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you just beat me to it. had just loaded the old page, only when I checked it was already the same as the current version. Sandpiper 18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue we are going to have to address and soon: with the deletion of the Dates in Harry Potter article, we no longer have a "traceable" reference to anchor down HP birth years, death dates, and important events and such. We previously had that article to reason through the years, and fix random changes introduced by vandals and trolls, as an internal backup info-source, and to avoid WP:NOR battles in the individual articles. Well so now our anchor has been uprooted, and we have no basis for (most of) the various years as posted. I've always been a bit queasy about saying "so and so was born in 1980" ... because they are fictional and were never born per se. None of the events "happened" outside of HP-universe years, except for a few random dates that Rowling curiously stated, relative to "earth years". The problem is, now all the HP articles are riddled with HP-universe years that are shown as earth-years, which we can no longer defend or verify, so I expect we will get blitzed (apologies to our London-pals) with "citation needed" demands. Either we have to come up with a reliable source for all the event years and birth dates etc., or we'll probably need to delete them. Something to think about. There is a discussion starting at the Project talk page. Would appreciate your views, and if you can help us find a WP:RS for citation purposes. Such a source would need to be pretty direct and explicit for each event, or we will still be challenged with OR claims. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, please tell me what in my edit qualifies as nonsense. I added a space following the comma. That is a required element of grammar. I had to revert your previous edit which deleted this. Michael 21:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that my edit was not vandalism. I corrected the grammar. Please review it. Michael 21:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator, actually, and I am well aware of policy. Please inform me what in my edit specifically qualifies as vandalism. The edit prior to mine (by the IP address) contains a random string of vandalism. Michael 21:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened. When you went to revert the IPs edit, you had also reverted mine and warned me. When I had reverted yours, it had reinstated the IPs edit. Michael 21:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you have just pointed out was the IPs edit. When you had originally tried to revert this, you had reverted my edit (the spacing), and when I had gone back to reinstate the space (that you had reverted with the IP's vandalism), the vandalism was re-added. Michael 21:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of policy. However, if you refer to the article history, you will note that my original edit was merely spacing. Yours, however, reverted both mine and the IP's. Since you had reverted mine and I had only seen your reversion of the change I had made (in regards to the space following the comma), and not the IP's vandalism, my reversion of your edit included both that which you had eliminated from mine and the IP's. Mine, however, was not vandalism, though the vandalism was later reinstated when I had reverted your edit (that had reverted my original edit without any cause in attempts of reverting the IP's vandalism). Michael 21:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was my edit that you had originally reverted. Michael 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also be cognizant, upon undoing edits, that you are only undoing vandalism and not substantive edits. Michael 21:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, replied earleier but on wrong page).I think you will find someone just speedy deleted it. The difficulty is that, having been deleted it is an immediate candidate to be speedied away. Or maybe not, I havn't checked the rules. Myself, I just messaged the guy who closed the debate to ask his grounds for deletion. I havn't had time, but am wondering excactly what the definition of a wp:not plot summary is, and whether it fitted the description. If this was the basis of deletion, and it does not fit, then possibly the page should be taken to articles for undeletion on those grounds. Sandpiper 09:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to reply until I saw Sandpiper's message through my watchlist. I was going to say the same thing, WP:CSD#G4. WP:DRV is probably the best bet. John Reaves (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clear candidate for db-repost. Also don't remove the speedy tag when using the hang on feature. This explains it better:

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
2. Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. RobJ1981 19:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not unilaterally recreate this article while a DRV on it is ongoing, especially if there is a cached version that editors can refer to, unless an admin approves restoration of the history for the duration of the DRV. Continuing to do so could lead to you being blocked. --Coredesat 19:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the recreation is still a synthesis of primary sources, and is still original research. It doesn't satisfy any of the concerns raised in the AFD or the DRV (otherwise another editor would not have seen it as a recreation and tagged it). It is a clear G4 candidate. --Coredesat 19:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are still primary sources. An article on a novel having primary sources is okay, but the sources cannot all be primary. And to be more blunt, your restoration was out of process. You are not supposed to recreate a deleted article undergoing DRV unless consensus is that it should be, or unless someone requests the history be restored, which an admin has to do. --Coredesat 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was not out of process because of the ongoing DRV, and I am not going to explain it again. Please read Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I am not talking about this on the talk page anymore - if you have a problem with the deletion, raise it in the DRV, since that's what it's for --Coredesat 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Solution to reinstatement?[edit]

Michael - In analyzing the arguments for upholding the deletion of the original and speedy-deletion and protection of the rewritten article, one of the recurring themes I see there is a general distaste or even hatred for "fancruft" in general, and particularly for Harry Potter "fans", and generally for all things Harry Potter and related subjects. It is a thinly veiled cultural revulsion that is clearly non-neutral POV, but carefully mascarading behind an encyclopedic by-the-rules analysis, which reeks of Wikilawyering and disrupting the Project making a point. We cannot do anything about these because we must assume good faith. There is also an clear argumentative assumption that the article contains disallowed "synthesis" and "original research", without really understanding the sources behind the work.

In examining the article, I think we have done this to ourselves. We open up with exactly what they despise: "Harry Potter fans have created a timeline for the Harry Potter series...", and I think they simply do not get much past the first sentence before making up their minds, or perhaps only scanning the dates listed and noting crufty-sounding points: birthdates and deathdates of imaginary ghosts, witches, and other fictional characters. The innocent sounding (to us) phrase immediately creates a tone which is exactly what the "opposition" is criticizing. It basically states, in their minds, that the following is all fancruft, and that it was created (ie: synthesized out of thin air or nothing) "for the series". This last part also carries a tone that the unreliable crazy-ass fanatics, who will literally fall for anything (re: Pyramids of Furmat, etc.) actually believe that they have benefitted the series by creating this timeline - as if Rowling needed the fans to do this "important" (to fanatics) work. Perhaps she did, but we do not need to say so in public. In any case I think the arguments they present will evaporate before a neutral administrator if we remove the offending phrase. Besides it is crossing into weasel wording to suggest that "some fans" created a timeline. I would recommend we open up with something more like: "J. K. Rowling approved a general timeline developed by Warner Bros. for the Harry Potter series...", and perhaps also note in passing that the timeline matches that produced by Mugglenet, HPANA, Leaky Cauldron, and whatever other reputable HP sites have it posted. This tone takes the sourcing and synthesis issues off the backs of the "unreliable crazy fanatics", solving the reliable source, original research, and synthesis problems within the wikipedia article. It may be enough to reinstate the article if we state clearly up front exactly what the anchoring sources are, rather than blurting out that "some fans created this...". --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That newspaper report there are theories make them considerable.

That fansites wrote one theory don't make it notable. The theory cited is absolutely not the only one and such reference just doesn't make any sense. The fact that something exist doesn't make it "conciderable". This is one theory on one website. Not conciderable.

So don't add these refs. Folken de Fanel 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your not willing to talk to me, only to write racial insults on my talk page, then just don't edit this article.Folken de Fanel 23:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're right, it is alright to speedy delete reposts. Wait for the outcome of the DRV. On a side note, the page is a good candidate for transwiking to the Harry Potter Wiki. You may want to do some editing there, it doesn't get much activity and we get to make or own policies so OR and "fancruft" are perfectly acceptable. It could use knowledgeable contributors such as yourself. John Reaves (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you think this prince should always be referred to (on his page as well as other wiki-pages) as "Louis-Ferdinand" when there are at least six book-length biographies of him which, 1. call him "Louis", and 2. don't even mention that he had any other Christian name? Usually on Wikipedia we give people the most commonly used form of name. Rudolf, Crown Prince of Austria is not referred to on other wiki-pages as "Rudolf Franz Karl Joseph, Crown Prince of Austria" - in spite of the fact that he undoubtedly had all those names. Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria is not generally referred to as "Rupprecht Maria Luitpold Ferdinand, Crown Prince of Bavaria". Why do you think that the Dauphin Louis is different? Noel S McFerran 22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Lead section contains no mandate that the bolded text be exactly the same as the title of the article, and, in fact, specifically mentions that it does not have to be. In the case of monarchs, it seems fairly clear, both through comparison with other encyclopedias and through the fact that any introduction worth its salt will mention what the person was king or grand duke of within a few words, that there should be an exception, and that "Name Ordinal" should be the bolded text. I have reverted your reversions of me. You shouldn't change it back unless you can come up with a better reason than citing a policy page which in fact provides no guidance on the question at hand. john k 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"of X" is a disambiguator, and not part of their basic name. Including it before the birth and death dates makes for a very awkward looking article, and is not the practice of any normal encyclopedia. Furthermore, as noted, the article always states very soon after what the person was King of. Including lots of junk before the birth and death date is both ugly and unnecessary. john k 00:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The country is not omitted, as every single article has a form along the lines of "Francis II (1544-1560) was King of France 1559-1560." john k 00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and the name is Francis II. Surely we can at least agree that what the "name" of a monarch is is a matter of judgment, rather than one of fact, and that either of our interpretations is at least potentially valid on that limited question. Once that is accepted, your argument collapses, because you have not presented any practical benefits to including "of France," merely the claim that it is somehow required by the convention. john k 00:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry IV (1553-1610) was King of France (1589-1610) and, as Henry III, King of Navarre (1572-1610). john k 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what possible basis do you claim that your last round of edits reduced redundancy? john k 00:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in discussing this further until you admit that Wikipedia:Lead paragraph says nothing about this issue. john k 01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was another user with "sand' in the user name. My apologies for my carelessness. --Cyrus Andiron 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your behaviour is becoming disruptive and you appear to be opposing other editors no matter what it requires: making edits that you yourself should have opposed for consistency and citing the MoS in one case and ignoring it in another. Please participate in the discussions. Srnec 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact words of the MoS are as follows:

The subject of the article should be mentioned at the first natural place that it occurs in the prose, preferably in the first sentence, and should appear in bold face. The name of the subject is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations.

It allows for the bold title to be different from the article title. Also, I dispute that "[Name] [Ordinal] of France" is the historiographical rule. Here is how Louis X should look:

Louis X (4 October 1289 – 5 June 1316), called the Quarreller, the Headstrong, or the Stubborn (French: le Hutin; Spanish: el Obstinado), was the King of Navarre (as Louis I) from 1305 and King of France from 1314 to to his death.

This does not sow confusion. Srnec 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits seem to be targeted at simply opposing the forms that I (and at least two others) favour. Can I ask why? Srnec 18:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS does not mandate the format you insist upon, as can be seen from the quotation above. Rather, other sections of the MoS oppose your format of linking and boldening. Srnec 20:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I urge you to ask other editors to intervene, as I have done? Srnec 20:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would notice that only one of those edits at Charles V was an actual revert. The others encompassed other tweaks. If, however, you regard those as reverts too, then you have violated 3RR many times yourself, so that's a non-issue. Srnec 21:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of my four edits of Charles V on 14 April, only two were actual full reverts. You have made three edits in that same period that are just as close to being reverts as my edits, so I don't think you have a leg to stand on in this. Srnec 21:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My whole point is that if partial reverts are violations, you are a violator too. But I won't report it, instead I will wait to see if anyone else would like to intervene to make their opinion known. I would prefer a democratic solution to this dispute. Srnec 21:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to revert every single edit I make to articles, even when they are perfectly justified.

Please leave your personal problems out of Wikipedia, and please do not disturb articles, for example by constantly adding by reverts unsourced original research, just for the sake of opposing me.

If you do not add rule-compliant content, you should quickly stop or your behavior will be noticed by admins (and it seems other users are already fed up with your way of editing revert-warring here, like Srnec).

You have to learn the way Wikipedia works. It's not enough to add a non-notable source just at the end of a whole, blatant OR paragraph, and say "see ? it's not me", because the OR stays and the bad source doesn't make up for it.

You have to understand Wikipedia isn't a fansite and won't contain theories and other non-notable fancruft. Go to Lexicon, or better, to the Harry Potter Wiki , if you so desperatly want to add this kind of stuff, because it has its place there. However, such material is in no way suitable for Wikipedia, (badly) "sourced" or not.

If you don't stop POV-pushing and revert-warring, you are going to get into troubles again.

So please, stop vandalising articles like R.A.B. Folken de Fanel 22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, stop adding OR, unsourced statements and unreliable source just for the sake of reverting me. You're disrupting the articles.Folken de Fanel 12:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat AGAIN, stop adding OR, unsourced statements and unreliable source just for the sake of reverting me. You're disrupting the articles.Folken de Fanel 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, stop adding OR, unsourced statements and unreliable source just for the sake of reverting me. You're disrupting the articles.Folken de Fanel 12:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've re-added the "current" Professors to the Past heading, why? And the reason I removed current from the page was because they're not really current, Flitwick could die at any time considering it has only gone up to June 1997. Therequiembellishere 05:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the real GoldenIrish. Someone has taken over my userpage and is vandilizing under my name. Whatever the vandilist did it was not me. You haft to believe me. Is there anyway I can change more password or start a new account? I greatly appologize for what this vandilist said to you.Thank You.GoldenIrish 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden - I went ahead and restored your User and Talk pages to what they were before the vandalism started - around 10 April. In the future, if someone steals your screen name, then change your password using "my preferences" at the top of the page. Then post a comment at the bottom of your talk page that says that some edits conducted in your name between (dates before and after) were someone posing as you. You can check "my contributions" at the top to see what someone might have done in your name, and maybe try to repair the damage. If an Administrator blocks you for vandalism done by another user under your screen name, then you can appeal that block directly to that Administrator for assistance. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a quick question - was just wondering why you reverted my removal of the word 'inexplicably' from the 'slug-vomiting charm' under spells in Harry Potter. It's hardly a big deal, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it (!) but I personally don't think that 'inexplicable' is the right word, as that would seem to suggest that there is no reasonable explanation for the use of the words 'eat slugs' which isn't really true... (best to reply on your page - I have a repeat vandal who likes to blank my pages, so I tend to keep them blank...)

Thanks a lot, Libatius 13:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I meant 'without explanation', not 'without conceivable explanation'. I've changed it now. Michael Sanders 13:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just broke 3RR. Not like I'm going to report it, but I thought you should know. Srnec 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your three edits to Philip II of France on 17 April 2007 were all complete reversions.

Now, I have decided that I am going to cease from editing the leads to the French monarch articles until outside parties intervene. Preferably, I would like to see a vote somewhere to determine the style guidelines for the specificities we've raised, since there is clear disagreement over the interpretation of the MoS. I don't know if there is a WikiProject or if the Talk:List of French monarchs page is the best for it, but I think that a vote should be initiated and we should each invite those editors we think are interested to vote there. I will leave the ball in your court for now. Srnec 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I was wrong, but then I think you were wrong when you accused me of making four reverts w/i 24 hrs above. But since neither of us wishes to take this anywhere, I'll let it go. Srnec 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove images from articles without good reason, please. Michael Sanders 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my mistaken edit summary. The reason is that this image is unsourced. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for restoring the Freezing spell - just noticed what I did there. Saw 'Immobulus' and just clicked delete... Not very smart. I'm awake now though...Libatius 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These repetitious double and treble templates are just a mess, and there are far too many coats of arms. You have to find a better way; the articles are not improved as they stand right new. Johnbod 01:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to put it much clearer - the text is overwhelmed by three infoboxes/templates with much of the same information, plus a blizzard of coats-of-arms that aren't even personal to the particular Duke. The articles look awful. Are you intending to leave them like this? Johnbod 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Severus Snape, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Folken de Fanel 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Severus Snape. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Folken de Fanel 11:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to Severus Snape, is considered vandalism and may result in a block. Folken de Fanel 13:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Severus Snape, you will be blocked from editing. Folken de Fanel 12:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. Zsinj^Talk 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to R.A.B., is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Folken de Fanel 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to R.A.B.. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Folken de Fanel 08:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to R.A.B., is considered vandalism and may result in a block. Folken de Fanel 12:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to R.A.B., you will be blocked from editing. Folken de Fanel 21:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing this title from succession boxes? Michael Sanders 00:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, thanks for asking. Because "Queen of the Romans" and "German Queen" are the same thing, the former just being a title to denote the latter. It is pointless to have a separate box for each. It would be like having two boxes for a Chine Emperor, one being "Chinese Emperor", the other "Son of Heaven", or "Vice President of the USA" and "President of the Senate of the US" - with the latter example at least denoting a difference in function, a difference totally lacking in our case.

I have observed that you seem to draw a distinction by thinking that becoming Empress voids the title "Queen of the Romans". True, an Empress would not be called "Queen of the Romans" but nonetheless she remains QotR and GK as long as her husband remains so and he remains so until either his death/abdication or the election of a successor in that office.

Personally, I could do without consort sucession box - but shouldn't we then have a list of consorts - currently the box links to the list of the Kings.

Though I prefer the clearer "German Queen" (or my compromise suggestion "Roman-German") I don't object to the title QotR. What I adamantly object to is creating two different succession boxes, implying that there is a distinction between the two. I hope you understand. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 'Queen of the Romans' and 'German Queen' aren't the same thing. The Holy Roman Empire was divided up into several different Kingdoms: the Kingdom of Germany, the Kingdom of Burgundy, and the Kingdom of Italy. The 'King of the Romans' or 'Emperor of the Romans' was monarch of all of these places, and his consort 'Queen of the Romans' or 'Empress of the Romans'; however, the 'King of Germany' was not necessarily 'King of the Romans' (although it was usually the case), and the 'King of the Romans' not always 'King of Germany' (ditto). The reason the 'Kingdom of Burgundy' and 'Kingdom of Italy' aren't included is because, quite simply, I don't know the dates and statistics for those - Germany, on the other hand, was the main substituent Kingdom, and thus easier to know.

As for separating out 'King of the Romans' and 'Holy Romab Emperor' - the latter was a specifically honorary title, used to indicate that the monarch had received a coronation by the Pope. It is thus useful to denote precisely which men and women held what title, since it is an institutionalised system (i.e. the idea that the title would change from 'King' to 'Emperor' upon Papal coronation was built into the system), unlike an example I encountered recently (Eugenie de Montijo being preceeded as 'Empress of the French' by Marie Louise and as 'consort of the French state' by Maria Amalia), where a made-up title wsa used to demonstate continuity. Michael Sanders 10:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further: the 'King of Germany' was the actual monarch of Germany: the monarchical power was vested in him, etc - though when there was an Emperor above him, the Emperor would be seen as the ultimate power above the King. The 'King of the Romans', by contrast, was either the monarch of the 'Roman' imperium (an 'uncrowned Emperor', although quite a lot were never crowned Emperor), or the designated heir apparent. In the latter form, it gave no power on its own; rather, it meant that the King would automatically succeed in the entire Empire without need of an election. Although, again, Germany and 'King of the Romans' were closely tied: election as King of Germany and as King of the Romans were usually the same (again, I don't know what happened about the 'Kingdom of Italy' and the 'Kingdom of Burgundy'). Michael Sanders 10:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, you are seriously mistaken. Let's get the facts straight:

• The HRE consists (for most of the time) of the German Kingdom (originally the Eastern-Frankish Kingdom), the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Burgundy.
• the usual procedure was: being elected and crowned as German King, move to Italy, get crowned as King of Italy, move to Rome, get crowned Emperor by the Pope (the Burgundian kingship is not essential to this and might occur any time)
• the title of the German King was unclear, after a Saxon dynasty took over a Frankish kingdom. Because of the German Kings were the future Roman Emperors, the term "king of the Romans" developed - since the Investiture struggle, the kings used it as their official title (as opposed to "Rex Teutonicorum", which was favoured by the Pope) as long as they hadn't acquired the Imperial crown yet. The title "Rex Romanorum" has nothing to do with possessing Burgundy, Italy or Rome but is the title used by the "German King".
• the title was also used for those heirs that were elected to the kingship in their sucecssor's lifetime. This even continued after the German kings ceased to get the Imperial coronation and simply ruled as Emperor elects.
• Occurences of the title "Rex Romanorum" in other contexts is completely unrelated to this. There is no continuity between the HRE's Rex Romanorum and the Napoleonic usage.
• As for sovereign power: only the Emperor as such had sovereign power. His authority covered all of Western Christendom, though it was merely way of diplomatic precedence. This was later challenged by the French legists, who claimed that the "King acts in place of the Emperor in his lands". The German King theoretically was subordinate to the Emperor. But after Otto the Great there was either no Emperor or he was the German King (not counting the heirs elected in their father's lifetime, who were subordinate to their father's anyway). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, I am afraid. As the Henry IV example indicates, the title was used quite specifically to denote that he was King of the Romans (i.e. of the entire imperium), rather than only the Germans. The Holy Roman Empire was made up of three main kingdoms, plus other bits and pieces. It would thus be used to denote that the King was ruler of all three, prior to his becoming Emperor. It is true that, originally, the process was unclear - the history of the empoire is like that, I'm afraid. But as it developed, the title 'King of the Romans' was used to refer to the sovereign of the Empire - as opposed to the title 'King of Germany', which was used to refer to the specific monarch of the Kingdom of Germany.

As the Empire developed, Germany became the cockpit of the Empire (because the Ottonians derived from there, originally ruled there, and built their power base there); Burgundy and Italy were both added later (Italy in the time of Otto I, Burgundy in the time of Conrad II). Because of this, Germany and the Empire became, to a large degree, unified in terms of process - the Germans would elect a King, who would then effectively be rubberstamped as 'King of Burgundy' and 'King of Italy', allowing him to take the honorific title of 'King of the Romans' to denote that he was ruler of the so-called 'Roman Empire'. He would then, as you noted, proceeed to the various coronations, before (if circumstances permitted) getting himself crowned by the Pope, which would give him the apparent divine sanction to take on the title of 'Emperor'.

The title 'King of the Romans' was also used to denote those who had been elected 'King of Germany' in the lifetime of the Emperor - it would indicate that the new King had the right to succeed in the Empire. When there was a co-existent King and Emperor, the King was understood as the monarch of Germany (and anywhere else he was recognised as ruling), and the feudal overlord of his kingdom; he himself was subject to his own feudal overlord, the Emperor. In one of the many paradoxes of the Empire, the Emperor would cease to be personally sovereign over the lands he ceded to his heir (just as, for example, the King of France was not personally sovereign over the Duchy of Brittany in the days of the feudal dukes); however, because he was the feudal overlord, he retained the right to command his vassal the King, and could dethrone him if he thought it appropriate. Because of this, the power of a subject 'King of Germany' varied from person to person. See, for example, Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor#Early life and reign for an example of the balance of power between King and Emperor.

When the sole monarch, the 'King of the Romans' (himself also his own vassal King of Germany, of Burgundy, and of Italy) used the title to indicate that he was the monarch of the entire Empire. He would use it until he was crowned by the Pope - at which point he would cease to be 'King of the Romans', and become 'Emperor of the Romans' (himself also his own vassal King of Germany, of Burgundy and of Italy).

Think - to a certain extent - of the British monarchy. The Queen is 'Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. She is also Head of the Commonwealth. The two titles are automatically united - by the terms of the constitution, the monarch of Britain is automatically the monarch of the Commonwealth - but they are, nonetheless, not the same. The former indicates that the Queen is the monarch of Great Britain (and also of Australia, Canada, etc). The latter indicates that she is the theoretical leader of the entire body of Commonwealth nations. The same, to a large extent, was true of the HRE (except, of course, the Queen doesn't become Empress of the Commonwealth by means of a Papal coronation, and the Commonwealth has less bric-a-brac. With the exception of cricket, of course). Michael Sanders 16:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You give many correct details but are nonetheless wrong in the overall assumption, that there is an office or a title subsuming all the particular kingdoms into one entity, the HRE, other than that of the Emperor. The Holy Roman Empire is called by that name because it is headed by an Emperor. The King of the Romans is only the title of the ruler of Germany (since the High Middle Ages) - yes, it denotes the claim to succeed in the Empire, to become Emperor, but this was based on the Ottonian-Salian practice of the German King becoming Emperor. The title denotes nothing more than kingship in Germany.

Of course, the Commonwealth parallel is flawed. The Empire was no league of different nations - some monarchies, some not - but one monarchical realm in (at least claimed) continuity of the old Roman Empire. You either are Roman Emperor or you are not ... you cannot be King of the Empire. And you become Emperor simply by getting crowned by the Pope. Of course, not just anyone will be crowned, since the Ottonians you have to be German King (which later takes the title King of the Romans) and King of Italy (on the way to Rome) ... Burgundy is actually not really necessary.

But even if we take your Commonwealth parallel: I see no "Head of Commonwealth" succession box in the article on Elisabeth II, only many boxes on her various states, from Britain to Malawi. But even if there were, the parallel to being head of the Commonwealth would be being Emperor. There is no intermediate third tier of a King of the Romans who rules all particular Kingdoms but is not yet Emperor. Such a thing doesn't exist out of your mind. Please stop your misinformed campaign.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was the case. Before an Emperor was crowned by the Pope, he called himself 'King of the Romans' - since he considered himself monarch of 'the Roman Empire', and thus 'of the Romans', but could not, by the conventions of the Empire, call himself 'Emperor' until formally crowned in Rome by the Pope. Look at the article King of the Romans - as it clearly states, before Imperial coronation, the monarch always called himself 'King' - sometimes with the addendum 'of the Franks'. It was when the Pope insisted that Henry IV was 'only' 'King of the Germans' that he took a title which he felt reflected his claims as much over Burgundy and, more importantly, Italy (the Pope was claiming that Henry had no rights in Italy because he was primarily the King of the Germans - and couldn't enforce his rights in Italy - Henry respnded by using a title indicating that Italy was as important, and that he would defend his rights there).

"The Holy Roman Empire is called by that name because it is headed by an Emperor" - a simplification, I am afraid, that is not even true by the 19th century style of Empire. The French Kings referred to themselves as 'Emperors' in correspondance even before Napoleon. The colonial powers had 'Empires' but no empires. Rome had an Empire whilst it was a republic. The Roman idea of Empire was not 'the nation ruled by the Emperor', but 'a collective of nations ruled by a single person or institution'. Which was the practice in the HRE (which was not, btw, it's formal name anyway at first). There are plenty of monarchs of the 'Holy Roman Empire' who were never 'Emperor' - look at Albert of Habsburg, who quite specifically ended the 'Interregnum of the Holy Roman Empire' - yet was never any higher title than 'King of the Romans'.

The title 'King of the Romans' was not only the title of the King of Germany. It was the title used to refer to a monarch of the collection of states we call the Holy Roman Empire, who had not yet received the Papal, and thus divine, sanction to be considered a universal Emperor. Michael Sanders 17:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Before an Emperor was crowned by the Pope, he called himself 'King of the Romans' - since he considered himself monarch of 'the Roman Empire'"

Well, of course the title was intended to support his claim to become Emperor. But nothing more. It has nothing to do with having collected various kingdoms, it is just a way of underlying one's customary position as "Imperator futurus". I know the article "King of the Romans" - I have participated in writing it and it absolutely confirms my position.

Look into the article Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor - somebody falsely inserted a sucession box for "King of the Romans" (which he supposedly became at his father's death in 1056). But you clearly see that at the time he succeeded to Germany, whereas it took until 1080 for him to become King of Italy. As I said, such a separate box is nonsense, but it beautifully collapses your nice little personal theory.

The HRE is called by that name because it is headed by an Emperor remains true, even if other rulers ("illegally") use that title to push their claim to sovereignity as the French Kings did since the 13th century. We are also not talking about Napoleon's French Empire. That Empire originally did not imply a form of government (as in the Roman Republic's Empire) is another matter and totally irrelevant to the issue. Of course, one could say that the Emperor was called that way because he was the one that ruled the Empire - in any case, the link between the two is clear: a realm ruled by a King is a Kingdom, not an Empire.

"The title 'King of the Romans' was not only the title of the King of Germany. It was the title used to refer to a monarch of the collection of states we call ..." bla bla bla. Simply repeating doesn't make it right. The ruler of the HRE is the Emperor. A ruler combining the Kingdoms of Germany, Italy and Burgundy is the King of these three respective Kingdoms, the first one being confusingly headed by a "King of the Romans". Every German King since Henry IV had that title, even if they have never even seen the Alps, let alone Italy or Burgundy or Rome. Rudolph of Habsburg and Adolph of Nassau were King of the Romans. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I found the article cited below illuminating. Seeing as it looks pretty authoritative and is written by a German professor, who presumably knows more than we do, I suggest we consider it authoritative until something better comes along.

The cite is: <http://www.stm.unipi.it/Clioh/tabs/libri/3/13-Averkorn_177-198.pdf>

I recommend especially pp. 186-89. What I take away from this is that the terms "King of Germany" and "King of the Romans" have the same denotation, and are different only in their connotations. They were each used to express a particular point of view about the Emperor's authority vis-a-vis the Pope. As usual, politics is at the root.Eldred1 19:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"When I refer to the end of the Hohenstaufens, ... I mean the period during which the King of the Romans, as ruler over his dynastic domains, became nothing more than one sovereign among many..."

"The most unmistakable example, however...of the indeterminedness in Germany during this period...Lupold's treatise on kingdom and Empire of 1340 defended the freedom of the electors to choose the the Emperor and the right of the king of the Romans, Louis of Bavaria, to the imperial crown. Since the Pope based his claim to the right of approval over the election of the King of the Romans on the theoretical subordination of imperium to sacerdotium, simultaneously associating this subordination with his right to crown he Emperor, every proponbant of an autonomous empire independent from the Papacy had to define the relationship between the regnum (that is, the German Empire as pertaining to the rights of the German electors) and the imperium (the empire as pertaining to Rome and the papacy in the imperial coronation). Lupold argued for the restriction of the papal rights by citing a body of proof ...[that] led him to understand the concept of empire in three distinct senses. Regnum meant the German Empire (reich), Charlemagne's legacy. In the regnum, in Aachen, the electors chose the German King without asking leave of the Pope. In the imperium, too, the king of the Romans reigned independently of the pope. In Burgundy and Italy, in Arles, Milan, and Rome, he presided over the administratio imperii, the maintenance of those imperial rights which Louis the Bavarian had stated in 1323 and which had aroused the opposition of Avignon. On the other hand, the rights of the King of the Romans in the imperium extended only as far as the area of Charlemagne's conquests; these rights were, therefore, 'irrational', as there was no question of any rational legitimization in the sense of a translatio imperii. It was a matter of rights by conquest and history. The third sphere lay beyond this historically attained imperium. It was the imperium in the widest sense, which the Pope had taken from the Greeks and confirmed upon Charlemagne, the legitimate and eternally valid translation imperii. This alone was the imperium as the universal office bestowed by the pope at the time of the imperial coronation." Heimpel, Hermann, "Characteristics of thge Late Middle Ages in Germany", contained in Pre-reformation Germany (editor Gerald Strauss).

And as for Henry IV, as the article King of the Romans states, the title only developed in his day, and did not mean what it came to mean later: that the title 'King of Germany' and 'King of the Romans' were two distinct titles, used often to mean the same thing, but politically separate offices. Michael Sanders 12:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, this whole long quote doesn't support your view:

• the theories of one author (Lupold) writing under Louis is no basis to deny the usage of the title "King of the Romans" universally used before and after him, from Henry IV to Francis II.
• however, your author doesn't even say that the King of the Romans was the ruler of the three particular kingdoms. He simply uses the title most important to him (KotR) as he is concerned first and foremost with the German Kingdom (to which that title belongs) - in Louis' day the HRE was already somwhat restricted to Germany - not of course completely: there still were Burgundian and Italian territories but these two Kingdoms were very much fragmented.

As for Henry: yes, the title developed in his day (or become prominent, I think it was used before but only sporadically - Henry IV is the relevant startin point). The two titles do not refer to two offices but to two aspects of one office: "Rex Teutonicorum" stresses the German base and orgin of the Kingship, "Rex Romanorum" its Roman dimension and destination. In the investiture struggle, each side wanted to stress the one element over the other.

If there really was a seaparte office, maybe you can provide some evidence for that? Or you can show when Henry (or another king) attained this mysterious office? We can clearly see when someone was elected and/or crowned German King, King of Italy, King of Burgundy or Emperor - but where is there ever reported a separate elevation to the (supposed) office of a "King of the Romans"?

I will soon also post the relevant entry from the Lexikon des Mittelalters. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source makes it quite clear. The King of the Germans rules over the regnum. The 'King of the Romans' rules over the imperium. As for when the office developed - like everything else in the Empire, it developed chaotically, by custom, and without clear starting point. It simply became the case that the uncrowned emperor would be called 'King of the Romans' ('Empress' Matilda, who was never crowned Empress, always signed herself Regina Romanorum during her marriage, since she was the ruling consort of the Roman domains, but not crowned Empress; she is however, by modern standards, an Empress-consort). Michael Sanders 12:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The writings of an authority of the time, as quoted in a modern book, without inclusion of any apparent critiscism of Lupold's writing, either contemporary, or modern, implies that it is accepted as the truth. Michael Sanders 12:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clear distinction is made. As I told you, the 'King of the Germans' was ruler of the regnum - Germany itself. The 'King of the Romans' was ruler of the imperium - the entire collection of domains, either directly ruled, or claimed by Charlemagne's conquest. That is a clear distinction. Michael Sanders 12:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the source made it quite clear, it wouldn't matter. One writer doesn't make a consistent usage. But even that is wrong: it is not clear: it simply claims that the King of the Romans (that is the German King) has authority in the components of the HRE even before an Imperial coronation. Which only indicates the sorry state of the other two kingdoms at the time.

That it developed chaotically is evading an answer (understandable, as there is no answer to this): which king where and where was the first to assume this mysterious fifth office (apart from the three Kingly and the one Imperial office)? The Regina Romanorum is simply the wife of the Rex Romanorum, which is the German King. Period. You are constantly assuming your definition without ever having established its veracity. It is a phantasy.

The modern writer quoting Lupold need not criticize him for something he never wrote. Lupold did not support your view.

Or to take your "clear distinction" from another angle: where's the evidence for an independent existence of the title "King of the German"/"German King" after Henry IV assumed the "King of the Romans"? Where is it? Which ruler distinguished between his German and his Roman kingship? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wouldn't need to make any differentiation in titles otherwise - he'd say, 'the King of Germany rules the regnum, and also the imperium. The clear differentiation of the two titles demonstrates the clear differentiation of the two offices. Michael Sanders 12:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such distinction between a German and a Roman King!

There is a distinction between a German Kingdom and the Imperium.

The only king mentioned is the Roman King (who happens to be the King of the German Kingdom)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is little point in citing Henry IV as an example of the title 'King of the Romans' - whether it had been used at all (which I neither confirm or deny) prior to him, it was under him that it was first consistently used - and it did indeed have a different function then. However, the title and its usage changed, as demonstrated by the source, to mean 'the ruler of the imperium.' That can happen, you know. Michael Sanders 12:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to reject things I have never said. I clearly already stated that the title is relevant only since Henry IV. Also, you have not given any evidence for such a "different function" - it only has ever one function: to stress the link between the ruler of the German Kingdom and the Roman Empire, quite apart from the Pope. Of course, the propagandistic battle died down in time, but the meaning of the title is clear and undisputed: it is the King of Germany. Get it!!! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, there is no use discussing with you. You simply can't grasp that things might be different from your phantasy. You invent an office that never existed, You claim a source that doesn't support your view (as it doesn't talk about a King of Germany it cannot produce even an unclear distinction between that and a King of the Romans - they are one aand the same: King of the Romans at that time is the title of the German King - there is no other). I can only say: wake up to reality! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, do you have any evidence that anybody ever called themselves, or was called, both King of Germany and King of the Romans at the same time? If nobody ever used both titles at the same time, then it seems to me it's misleading for Wikipedia to do so. 66.208.46.254 15:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I have moved the entire debate over to Talk:King of the Romans, as this issue concerns not just Michael and me. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a different topic: I agree that Navarre should be mentioned in the header of the Kings of France and Navarre. However, since these are never called "Name Number, King of Navarre" but "Name Number (France), King of France and Navarre" - this format should be used. I think that is what John is objecting to. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then again: Name Number, King of France (dates) was King of France reads awkward and redundant. IMHO the current state is better, as long as both France and Navarre are included. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a invalid block so I've unblocked you. John Reaves (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I just noticed someone else already declined. John Reaves (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain "invalid". As I have explained, Michaelsanders has received the 3 levels of ""unsourced" warning templates, didn't listen, was given 4th level of "vandalism" template (and I remind you that "adding unsourced or original content is considered vandalism and may result in a block", he didn't listen, so he gets blocked. Reaves, that you have your little favorites here on Wiki doesn't justify the unblock of vandals like Michael who spit at the rules. Folken de Fanel 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting those succession boxes, please. You have provided nada proof for your claim - my usage is the one used by historians. Stop spreading your unsourced fantasies and assertions. And consider where you are heading. See the section header. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, at a minimum, if you're going to insist on giving these HREs both "king" titles, you need to provide evidence that they actually had both titles. From everything I've seen, they were either "K of the R" or "K of G/the Gs" depending on what somebody's preferred usage was, but I've yet to see where any of them were called "K of the Rs, K of G/the Gs." I totally agree with Str that it doesn't make any sense at all to give somebody two titles if, in fact, he only had one.Eldred 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't insert your own comments into the middle of others' statements, it's confusing. Put your comments at the end like everybody else. Srnec 20:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break? John Reaves (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Spells in Harry Potter, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (3rd nomination). Thank you. Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Coronation of King Odo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Constance of Arles.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're back after a long hiatus. I'd just like to thank you for uploading a truly valuable image of John I of France. Srnec 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just took the page from the French version, so some of what I put might be wrong. What are you using as a source? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the correct blazon for Charles VI, or does LoS just show the eagle? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the correct COA for Albert II? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 01:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, there was some lag in the page revision, and it looked like you kept this image, but you didn't.[reply]

One more - what was Sigismund's arms? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 01:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your William Adelin edit has made it a seriously poor article, the old one was wikified at least. Now we have just a huge block of text, about half of which is totally unnecessary information on the grammatical structure and development of the word Aetheling, which you have still failed to grasp. Would it be worth me making it better, or will you just revert everything for the sake of it?

Many apologies for not assuming good faith, but it would only be veiled after reading even a small part of your edit history. Truly compelling.

regards --Tefalstar 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhh, seeing as your reply neither made sense nor answered any of my questions I'll take it as an apology. I'm sure you eagerly await my total rewrite.

regards --Tefalstar 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That was a bit more cerebral. Just because one poor article is replaced with another, doesn't mean a good one isn't possible friend. And as far as vandalism is concerned, I've never had any interest in disrupting the site, there was a sophistication in my actions far beyond that of writing a factual article. If i wanted to know how to be disruptive, I would print off your edit history.

regards --Tefalstar 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there--you removed the 'fact' tag from the photo caption, but the photo still isn't sourced. Do you have a source for that photo? I'm genuinely curious; Peter Brown's World of Late Antiquity captions the same photo as, merely, "a family group of the fourth century." Dppowell 23:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits without explanation because you happen to disagree with the stated reason for the previous edit is tantamount to vandalism and has no place at Wikipedia. As to images, I thought you had learned your lesson with John I of France. Srnec 05:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the only editor who finds (dis)infoboxes to be a waste of space, but you are, so far as I know, the only editor who finds non-notable 16th-century images of 9th-century monarchs valuable in those monarchs' articles. Srnec (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says on the image page: "Coat of arms of Manfred of Hohenstaufen, king of Sicily. Attention: Not the coat of arms of the dynasty! The dynasty used three lions (gold on black/ sometimes black on gold)." Here's the link to the latter. Is this correct? SamEV 08:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not upload images over other urelated images with the same file name. It will mean that the earlier image is deleted and the new, totally inappropriate image, will appear in the pages linked to the first image. Your action is especially odd since the same image was uploaded by you as Image:Emperor Maurice.JPG. Paul B (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. I already fixed it. The upload page should tell you if you are about to overwrite a pre-existing image. But the format has recently changed, so the information may have appeared in part of the window that's not immediately visible on screen. You overwrote a picture of the Victorian writers F.D. Maurice and Thomas Carlyle. So unfortunately their pages suddenly had a picture of an ancient coin instead of their portraits! Never mind. Paul B (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "beneficiary count", Sanders? And why is it in quotation marks and linked? Or do you just have fun reverting me without reason? Srnec (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Beneficiary count" is not used in the literature. It is an arbitrary distinction anyway and not one well-supported by evidence in the case of the counts of Vermandois. Srnec (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on his quotation in the Charlemagne article? What does it add? Srnec (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to go right through this article re-editing it into encyclopaedic format I will do it. I had just completed half an hours further work which was lost due to your reversion/edit conflict. David Lauder (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Carolingians, Lotharingia and Italy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Srnec (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pépin le Bref is not a native form. Neither is the German. The English variations (of the original Latin) are the only ones used in English literature today. Foreign languages only require treatment in the first line if they are used in English commonly or if foreign-language sources are the only ones available. This does not apply to Pippin. He is never called by his French or German names in English literature. And they are not "native" names, that would be an Germanic name and the Latin Pippinus. Srnec (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The Franks did not become the French. The Franks of the region where Pepin and the Carolingians originated did not speak Old French. There is no evidence of an Old French "le Bref" for Pepin dating to anywhere near his lifetime. Srnec (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Franks became the Dutch and Flemings too. That's what their language became also. I see no reason why Pepin wouldn't have had nicknames, though we don't know what they are. We do know what he was called in Latin and its a fair guess that his Germanic name was "Pippin." Pepin was raised in a Germanic-speaking district. "We" do not use the modern French form. We use an English nickname with an Anglicisation of the Latin, German(ic), or French. The primary criteria for inclusion is, is it used in English sources frequently? The French "le Bref" is not. Srnec (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the naming of historical figures it is entirely irrelevant what they or their contemporaries spoke. John of England didn't call himself John and neither did his subjects, but we call him nothing else. Srnec (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did not live in a French or German culture. No such things existed then. The modern French and German forms are irrelevant. The question is "What do we call him in English?" The French have no special connexion to Pepin, nor do the Germans, or the Belgians, or the Dutch... Srnec (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is conveyed by using his French name. He wasn't French, his kingdom wasn't French, his language wasn't French. It confuses the reader into believing that there is something "French" about him, but there isn't. He ruled land that formed part of the later France, but that's it. Many people ruled that land, like Julius Caesar, but that doesn't make them proto-French. One can only begin to commence to talk about a "France" post-Verdun (843) and even then it is best to wait until the 10th century or the Capetians. The Frankish state was not a proto-France. Srnec (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Germanic Frankish language did not evolve into French, a Romance language. The Franks as a people did not evolve into the French. The relationship between "Francia" and "France" is not accidental, but it is not synonymy. The Francia article outlines some of the ways the word changed in meaning over time. Srnec (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Franks did not settle en masse in Gaul, as Anglo-Saxons probably did in Britain. Some Franks ended up living in Gaul, but most lived in the Belgic provinces, the Rhineland, and the Low Countries. All Crusaders were and are called Franks, so 12th-century terminology doesn't reveal much. "Frankish" identity was complex, see Abbo Cernuus for an indication. Srnec (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]