User talk:Skol fir/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Jessica Watson. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --75.47.151.87 (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

In my message to you (on your Talk Page) I referred you to an ongoing discussion I had with several other editors. We all agreed there were problems with that photo you are trying to push to the front. The one I was able to receive permission for came directly from Andrew Fraser, Jessica's manager, and he agreed that we could use it. That is not taking ownership. That is using the normal avenue of discussion and arriving at a solution. Maybe that is something you still need to learn, if you are new to WIkipedia. I do not own this article. I simply try to improve it as I see fit, and if you don't like it, you don't belong here. --Skol fir (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism? I think not!

I noted the changes being that they were the rightful corrections and you evidently are content to relay information that is innacurate. You do no one who is sourcing information any favours by ramining ignorant of facts and allowing misconceptions to prevail.

The ruling Dynasty of the Danish Royal Family is not that of Monpeazt, and until instituted by the sovereign of the day with the approval of parliament, all members of the royal family belong to the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg as it is the reigning dynasty.

You are evidently unfamiliar, so I advise you reserch the subject before accusing someone of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parure (talk • contribs) 05:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Parure, I responded to Surtsicna's reversion of your first edit, did my own research and found that he was right. Look at Danish Royal Family, the first paragraph. If I read correctly, it says that " The Queen's children and male-line descendants belong agnatically to the family House of Laborde de Monpezat and have been given the title Count(ess) of Monpezat." Following from that statement, it is obvious that all his children are from the same House. We are saying nothing about who is ruling now, just that they belong to that House of Monpezat. Is that clear? The current Queen of Denmark rules, and so does her House, but her children and offspring belong to another House.

If you have alternative information, please provide a valid reference, as I am going on what it says there. I was justified in warning you of vandalism, because you were independently defacing several articles at once without consulting anyone. In such a case, it is required that you open a discussion on the Talk Page for one of the articles (for example Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark) and explain your viewpoint with proof. Otherwise we assume that you are trying to push your own agenda. Sorry if you take offence, but none was intended. These are the standard practices for apparent willful disruption of articles without proof.

Please look at WP:OR for information on what to avoid when contributing to articles.

--Skol fir (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Skol after a long review, I agree with parure. "Your own research" is clearly unverifiable. I write this not to cause conflict, but to better wikipedia. Please improve to help this project. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ???

The above comment was unsigned and makes no sense, as this issue has long since been resolved by numerous discussions elsewhere. Besides, parure himself thanked me for my response (see the next section), so the person for whom my comment was intended was satisfied. Whoever the above unsigned person is, has no business in this matter, as he/she was not involved in the discussion and has no idea what the topic was.

Other editors back up my viewpoint there. This particular section resulted from an obvious POV entry that needed to be reverted, as it was blatantly false. The unidentified intruder above apparently has no idea what our discussion was about. "My own research" above refers to educating myself on the topic and then making an intelligent contribution to the article. Any experienced editor knows that issues are finally resolved by mutual discussion and reliable sources, not by original research alone. For beginners, it may be useful to start here: Help:Contents/Getting started. --Skol fir (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response...

Do you suppose there is room then to acknowledge the difference between House and Dynasty? It's a logical thought!

You will have people assuming the Dynasty of the Royal House of Denmark is Monpezat which clearly, it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parure (talk • contribs) 05:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, Parure. I am always happy to explain my actions, unless they are of an embarrassing variety! Your question reminds me of a line from Shakespeare, "A plague on both your houses." This refers to the houses of Capulet and Montague in Romeo and Juliet.

Romeo:

Hold, Tybalt! Good Mercutio!
[Tybalt under Romeo's arm thrusts Mercutio in. Away Tybalt]

Mercutio:

I am hurt.
A plague a' both your houses! I am sped.
Is he gone and hath nothing?
Romeo And Juliet Act 3, scene 1, 90–92

So, to answer your question, I do not think that most people are concerned that the Danish Royal Family is trying to become a Dynasty. In fact, the way I understand the current situation -- if Frederik succeeds the Queen, that will be the end of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg in Denmark, although for now that House still includes the royal houses of Denmark and Norway, the deposed royal house of Greece, and the heir to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms.

If you would like to introduce the concept of Dynasty vs. House, feel free to do so in a new section, at a discussion page. I suggest starting at Talk:Danish Royal Family. I personally do not see the need to bring Dynasty into it, because it is accepted that when the next King or Queen takes over in Denmark, the Dynasty of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg will be over (at least for Denmark).

BTW, have you learned the signing procedure yet? I noticed you forgot to sign a couple of times, but that was probably an oversight. --Skol fir (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless Frederik decides to change the name of the dynasty in accordance with government approval, the House of Schleswig Holstein Sonderburg Glücksburg will remain as is, in Denmark. As any such decision has not yet come to pass, Frederik is, as is his family and the family of his brother, members of his mother's dynasty.

As I stated, there are legalities involved and unless parliament agrees, the 'name' of the Royal Family of Denmark will not be Monpezat.

Furthermore, the title of Monpezat which was bestowed upon the family and future generations, is an entirely Danish creation, seperate to the Monpezat family but in honour of the Prince Consort's lineage.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parure (talk • contribs) 09:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Parure (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

To address this issue, I have made some pertinent changes to the lede sections for House of Monpezat and Danish Royal Family. These edits have not been contested thus far. I have not been able to find any firm evidence about what will happen to the Dynasty of the current Royal Family should Frederik take over from his mother. Therefore, we can safely say that there will probably be no change in the ruling dynasty without approval of the Danish parliament (most likely following the request of the king-to-be, Crown Prince Frederik). It may be that the current constitution of Denmark has something already in there about changing the Dynasty, if the royal lineage is not patrilineal, but matrilineal (as the current monarch is a Queen). This makes for an interesting time when it does happen. --Skol fir (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I found this interesting comment by Harlay at Talk:House_of_Monpezat#House of Denmark. You might have an opinion on this as well. From what this person says, it is likely that the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg will continue to reign supreme, even after Frederik ascends the Danish throne. --Skol fir (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that the first in line to the British throne, Charles, Prince of Wales, happens to belong to this same House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, but in his article it shows "House of Windsor" above that. It seems that the British are deferring the Dynasty to Queen Elizabeth's lineage, not her husband's. Maybe their parliament already settled that matter. --Skol fir (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoops

I misread the article. Silly me for trying to talk about our neighbors to the north's political affairs. :P --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It does sound a bit confusing, when the headline reads, "Ignatieff quits as Liberal leader." Also, you might remember that yesterday Mr. Ignatieff was still planning to stay on as leader, but now I guess the Liberal Party is scrambling to save face in the wake of this crushing defeat. You are welcome to continue contributing to your neighbors' political affairs. Just be aware that there are some Canadian editors watching like hawks! :-) --Skol fir (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's so weird to see a party get absolutely demolished like that since I'm so used to the American system, where it's impossible for a party to be completely demolished in the Senate and it's highly unlikely in the House. You never see results like that. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 03:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

British Royalty

Hello there, as you're clearly interested in the subject area, I'm inviting your participation in a discussion of recent edits to articles about British royalty at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty. Best regards. Rubywine (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Rubywine, I would be glad to help in this discussion. I already ran into User:Garn Svend at another website, for the House of Monpezat, where we exchanged a few heated words, about the matter of the same House of Glücksburg. However, in Denmark it is the house of the current reigning dynasty and should remain so, unless the Crown Prince decides to go with his father's house, which is the House of Monpezat. I am just getting familiar with this issue, and would be happy to partake what I have gathered so far. See you at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_Royalty, once I put my thoughts together. --Skol fir (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making the time. I look forward to reading your thoughts. Rubywine (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Dates

Yeah, there are still a few articles here and there which have the dates denoted that way; they're just uncorrected leftovers from the guy who first created the Canadian MPs infobox template before it got merged into the generic style (and you'll also notice that in some of those same articles the entry fields are in a really weird and counterintuitive order, such as the MP's birthdate being between the predecessor and successor fields for their office.) If and when you see an infobox whose term dates are links to the election articles, it should indeed be corrected to contain the exact dates of office that are denoted by the parliamentary website, if at all possible — but the unlinked year alone is also acceptable, if for whatever reason you can't or don't want to check parl.gc.ca. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It is good to know the story behind those templates. If I see one that got away, I'll snag it! --Skol fir (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for upload

Help requested. --75.47.152.151 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"75.47.152.151", I looked at the file(s) that you are trying to upload. The problem right now is that you placed a copyright of "All Rights Reserved" on the Flickr photos that you are trying to upload to Wikipedia. Wikipedia only accepts files that already have a free license such as "Attribution-ShareAlike -- CC BY-SA," which is the preferred license on Wiki. The file I uploaded with the picture of Jessica Watson had all rights reserved on Flickr. However, I was able to get around that by asking the owner of the photo for written permission to change the copyright for the photo to CC by SA, using the permission form letter. and sending this permission to the OTRS ticket system :: see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.

The other option is to go to the source at Flickr. If you are the person who uploaded these photos to Flickr, then you should have a box to the right of the words "License -- All Rights Reserved" that says (edit).

1. Click on that and choose "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons", which is the second choice from the bottom.
2. Do that for every photo that you plan to upload to Wiki.
3. Now give the same link(s) on Flickr as the source, and they should now be acceptable for Wiki, under the free licence of "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons".

I hope that was helpful. Let me know if you have any other questions.

--Skol fir (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You will have to ask the author to do it for you. --75.47.145.83 (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that not the responsibility of the person trying to upload the pictures? In this case that would be 75.47.136.119 (talk). ...or are you asking me to help in that regard? I have never had this kind of anonymous request before, so I am not sure what you want me to do. --Skol fir (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because I am not the author. --75.47.145.83 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I sent a request to Austen Parker at Flickr and at two other contact addresses, to have him change the copyright on the two photos. Hopefully he will agree to do that. --Skol fir (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Austen Parker is not responding to his email. There is nothing further that we can do. --Skol fir (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We will wait and see. --75.47.140.142 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep trying. We will see about that issue. --75.47.153.59 (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We tried everything and Austen Parker has not responded to his e-mail at all. He either did not respond or has deleted his e-mail. As a result he declined to change the license or send OTRS permission. All for nothing. The request is over. --75.47.159.137 (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

N Not done --75.47.159.137 (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Austen Parker does not seem to be checking his Flickr account anymore, or his two MySpace accounts, which he gave as contact addresses. The only acct where he might still be active is on Twitter, but I cannot leave a message there because he is not following me. I saw the photos in question, and I honestly don't think they really are worth all this effort anyway. There are much better photos of Abby from other sources. Whoever wants them can Google them and find out their copyright status. Good luck! --Skol fir (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop trolling me, Thank you.

Please stop trolling me and rv my edits which are correct. It is clear that you have made many errors to your so called corrections. I like you are trying to improve WIKI. Thank you ~~Porgers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porgers (talk • contribs) 05:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked all my edits you refer to, and any errors I made were corrected by myself, e.g. the Ward numbers in Toronto have changed over the years, and therefore you have to check for each individual election what they were. Your choice of number happened to be wrong for 1997, which I correctly edited to the right number. You are one to talk about "trolling" when you jumped into a discussion blind and pretended to know what you were talking about. I have seen through all your pretense and sock-puppetry. Be careful that you don't jeopardize any good will that other editors might have left for your contributions here. --Skol fir (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

R U for real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porgers (talk • contribs) 05:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record. I have decided to report your trolling and conduct to the next level. I hope that you can improve your conduct going forward. If I may recommend, sometimes people need some time off from a project. Maybe you should take a wiki break of a month or two. ~~Porgers

Please note: I have discovered that Porgers (talk) is a recently created sock-puppet for anonymous IP 67.193.59.152. He will feign innocence while utililzing disruptive tactics for changing articles at will, without supplying proper sources. --Skol fir (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please review all of skols actions and edits for April - May 18 2011. I have also found out that skol fir is a sock of Mr. Stradivarius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porgers (talk • contribs) 06:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I never heard of Mr. Stradivarius before; you, on the other hand, have revealed your own dual identity through your own edit summaries and recent comments. --Skol fir (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

see my talk page for proofPorgers (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR on Jean Chrétien

I've just noticed that Porgers (talk · contribs) is right about one thing - you have gone over 3 reverts on Jean Chrétien today. Remember, WP:EW says to not to edit war even if you believe you're right... All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Technically I made only two reverts for the same edit. I am well aware of the limit. My other additions were based on what has long been accepted in the article as fact, now suddenly contested by Porgers, in an obvious attempt to skew the article. All I was trying to do was give Chretien and Martin the benefit of the doubt that they had something to do with the debt reduction. I have other fish to fry, and this article is not a priority for me. Thanks for intervening, anyway. --Skol fir (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Porgers' editing did not seem neutral to me at all. 3RR doesn't have to be for the same material added, by the way, just the same article - but I don't really want to press the point on this. I've added the suggestion you made on the talk page to the article, and hopefully this should solve the conflict. Thanks for taking the time to reformulate it! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In Porgers' previous incarnation as anonymous IP 67.193.59.152—revealed by his/her own admission in this edit just minutes after creating his new ID—he blanked large amounts of information with references from the Jack Layton article, in this edit :: Revision as of 09:27, 12 May 2011 -- including an entire section. This was done in a subversive manner, pretending to Rv an edit as vandalism, when the editor himself was the actual perpetrator. He/she obviously has a bias against a particular political opinion and is determined to use underhanded and deceptive methods to get his way. This goes against the principle of WP:NPOV. --Skol fir (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I had thought it might be something like that. Porgers doesn't seem to have edited since earlier on today, so I think the best course of action for now is to wait and see if they make any more stray edits. If they do, we can think about making a report on one of the noticeboards. Let me know if you spot anything, and I shall endeavour to help as best I can. Thanks again. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reported Porgers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Porgers reported by User:Mr. Stradivarius (Result: ) after their latest revert at Jean Chrétien. You are also mentioned in the discussion. I think it would be good to hear your version of events too - do you want to make a comment? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. Stradivarius, for drawing my attention to this report. I have submitted my view of the situation there. --Skol fir (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

== ip socking ==

I believe you know that logging out and using an IP address (such as 75.47.157.136 ) to circumvent 3RR or otherwise obfuscate your identity is a blockable offense. You should stop. Toddst1 (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC) - the previous threat is nonsense. Probably a result of false accusations by another editor who has a grudge. Please ignore.

I think you mean thread, not threat. To Skol's credit, I believe that an IP hopper may have attempted to place circumstantial evidence incriminating Skol. Toddst1 (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, "thread" sounds better! "Threat" was not the right word choice. :-( --Skol fir (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Rollbacker

Hi. I've been looking over your contributions and you certainly seem to do good work here despite the accidental 3RR above dealing with the purely disruptive Porgers. I've gone ahead and issued you rollback rights. Please be careful with the privilege - it can be easily lost. I recommend you carefully read up on the what you should do and should not do with rollback, then practice here before using it. I'm confident you'll use it wisely. If for some reason you don't want it, let me know and I'll revert.

You may wish to display {{User rollback}} on your user page. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote of confidence in me, Toddst1. If I decide to keep this privilege, I will definitely be careful to use it wisely. Thanks for helping out with my latest run-in with a purely disruptive editor. --Skol fir (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

re More socks of Porgers active

Please post about this to WP:SPI, or WP:ANI. -- Cirt (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I will have to learn how to do that first, as I am relatively new to this sort of thing. My main purpose here is not to be a policeman, but to do some honest-to-goodness editing of Wiki articles. My question to you was why a person who is blocked can still work on other projects from the blocked IP address, that is all. --Skol fir (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

They were only blocked on English Wikipedia, this one website, not other projects, which are separate but linked websites. -- Cirt (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. No further questions, your honor! --Skol fir (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff

Hi Skol fir,

I have rv your edits as I don't believe they are pov as you claim. However, if you disagree I would be open to a discussion on the talk page. The information that you deleted is both sourced and true. Best SuperX9 (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in a discussion on this trivial issue. Original version: "In the Canadian federal election held on May 2, 2011, Ignatieff lost his seat in Parliament, while the Liberal Party was reduced to 34 seats, placing a distant third behind..." gives all the information required. Your reversion back to "In the 2011 federal election, Ignatieff lost his own seat and led the Liberal Party to the worst showing in its history, reducing the party to 34 seats while placing a distant third behind ..." definitely sounds like someone trying to make a person look bad. "worst showing in history", "losing his own seat" to me clearly put a negative slant on it. That's my opinion, because I am a fair, objective person, with malice towards none, and good will to all, traits which seem to be lacking among a lot of editors here.

Have it your way.--Skol fir (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)