User talk:Another Matt

Regarding File:English monarchy family tree.png

Greetings Another Matt,

I just discovered your English royal family tree and, first, I must say that it is quite well designed overall. What program did you use to design it? I make my own dynastic trees and am always looking for new styles that I may integrate into my own designs.

That being said, I have a few issues with the genealogy, although nothing too problematic – most are just suggestions. ( * First, Stephen seems a little bit crammed in the corner. I briefly through you implied Louis VIII was descended from Stephen and not his father, but now I see my mistake there. However, your genealogy still implies that Louis VIII descends from a different line than Adela's, which is incorrect. I know you know this, but the genealogy is a bit vague on the issue. I'd recommend rearranging that corner a bit to show that Louis descends from both parents. Also, while Stephen's reign was "contested" and certainly disputed by Maud, generally he is still listed as sole king by modern historians and his reign is not listed as "disputed". Maud wasn't even in England during most of his reign.

Henry the Young King's text could probably be simplified to just read "co-king" or "co-reigned with father".
Regarding the Yorks, I think it would be better to show their descent from Lionel of Antwerp AND Edmund because it is through Lionel and not through Edmund that they claimed the crown of England. You are not inaccurate with your genealogy, but you are overly simplifying the reality of the situation (as many genealogists do). The Lionel descent is vital to understanding the senior claim to the throne that the Yorkists represented. Not showing that undermines their claim.
I think it is an interesting decision to only show spouses when they parents of a monarch, but not when they do not have any children with their spouses. I know this is a tricky subject because of the fact that half of these monarchs remarried, but it makes many of the monarchs seem unmarried. I'd recommend, if nothing else, including Philip II of Spain on the genealogy as he was named king consort during the reign of Mary I.
Lastly, I'd recommend including Charles, William, and George at the bottom of the genealogy just to show that the line continues beyond the reigning monarch.

I think that's it. Keep up the good work with the genealogies. These things are tricky tools that can tell a lot but can also be misunderstood. It is the task of we historians to make sure they are presented in the clearest and cleanest way possible to convey the most accurate information. As I said before, yours is very good overall and I really like the style. Cheers! – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 01:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Whaleyland: Hi, thanks for your comments. I have, by chance, just uploaded a new version with what seems to me a more logical order (in this context) for the offspring of Henry VIII. I do not have time just at this moment to address your comments, but I hope to get back to them in the not too distant future, at which time I may have a couple of questions for you. Thanks again for your interest. Another Matt (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Another Matt. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Another Matt. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiling animations

I like the animations on Pentagonal_tiling (such as File:Pentagonal_tiling_type_4_animation.gif). Can you share any details on how you created them? I'm interested in making some similar animations of tiling transitions. If I can figure that out, I also want to try to make some that transition over space instead of over time. Any tips are appreciated! Monguin61 (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The West Pole, Texas

The article The West Pole, Texas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails gng

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dudhhr (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]