User talk:Taksen/Archive 5

your edit summary, AGF?

Re diff, did I claim page # was unnecessary? AGF? maybe an oversight, not sure. Note that I did reformat another ref around the same time preserving page #. --Jeremyb (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and the message. I did not know Liedte died. He was very precise; and this book is extensive.Taksen (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Taksen, witch one is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Flowers_in_a_Terracotta_Vase one that is correct? Original, Alt 1 or Alt 2. You know, they are all on the museum's webbsites... the original too.... Kinda confusing. Hafspajen (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is Alt 1 also from the museum... Hafspajen (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Albert Stopford at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Christina...

Quick one - "youth bedmate" doesn't make any sense. Those two words together don't mean anything. I presume you mean "described by Christina as a 'bedmate' during her youth", which would be okay. Want to have another crack at that one? If you can, use the cite template (not critical, just helpful). Cheers, St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, edit-conflicted. I wasn't "deleting references" - I undid the edit. I'm not actually sure those are her words. That would seem to be a fictionalised or dramatised account of her life, written as an autobiography but sourced to texts written long after her death. Not sure we should be using those quotes as quotes. What else do we know about that source? St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

None of that sentence makes sense now because that section was inserted into the existing text. I think you'll need to re-write that bit. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is from a university. It looks like an autobiography. I quoted it several times as it has useful information, including "bedmate". Unluckily it does not give much information about the original text. Taksen (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's an autobiography. I think it's a creative writing project; a fictional account. Otherwise, Christina was writing it and citing sources (for her own autobiography, which would be weird enough) that were created hundreds of years after she "wrote it" (even weirder). St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It can't be fictional, it has too many precise details, which I did use in the article.Taksen (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC) We have to find out more. Some quotes seems missing, I don't understand what they did.Taksen (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The person who wrote it has pointed out that it's fiction - she wrote it as a sample for her students to instruct them on the writing of similar fiction about other historical figures. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not enough, where is the email, the source, the reference. I still think, he or she has a lot of knowledge. Some details where quite right and fit in very well. Why didn't you spot them? Why I had to do the work?Taksen (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC) please stop discussing items here, that belong to the talkpage.Taksen (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Then explain your edits there rather than reverting in the article and calling people "foolish" as part of nonsensical demands that other people explain why that source is inappropriate. You don't seem to understand the normal WP:BRD process, or WP:V or WP:BURDEN. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not interested in WP rules, they are too complicated, there are too many to remember. I am interested in history and in an explanation, so the discussion can be solved. I found some interesting details, which I added here, for several years, as you probably will remember. I have no interest in regarding Christina as a heterosexual. I add what seems interesting. We don't need an encyclopaedia based on written sources, that is past, 20th century stuff.Taksen (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Then just stick to one - WP:V. You found some fictional details - a story created by someone - and then tried to use quotes from that source even after those issues were explained to you. You're free to be uninterested in the rules but that doesn't mean you can break them. And don't call people "foolish" for sticking to the rules, please. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Redacting

Just a quick note regarding this at Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden. Per the talk page guidelines, one's own comments shouldn't be removed from talk pages if anybody has responded to it (striking is the typical alternative). Granted, not actually a big deal here given the only person who had commented, Stalwart111, seems to be ok with it. Just an FYI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I know. Usually I don't put draft text on the talkpage, but this time I did. Taksen (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Albert Stopford

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Twice deleted comment about Mikhail Rodzianko being called a "Fat Pig"

Hi Taksen, please see my comment here best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Gerard Shelley at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Gerard Shelley

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Rasputin

Hi - As a new Wikipedian, have been looking for pages I might contribute to and stumbled on Rasputin, which it looks like you are a major contributor to. Just wanted to say: first class article, really well done. TotoroRules (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was criticized a lot lately.

Rasputin

I'm only following Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe setting every image at 240px looks great on your browser, but it's a dog's breakfast on others. It's too bad you feel that way about Wikipedia. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, you only follow the rules. Not many people complained about the size of the pictures. Most people seem to have wide screens nowadays. I assume people with smart phones stay on pages only a few seconds to read the lead. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not tell us this. Taksen (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Friendliness

Hi, I don't think it is very nice to tell other editors which articles they should and should not edit. We are all in this together, let's collaborate in a spirit of friendliness! His position of Minister-Chairman was mentioned twice in the two introductory paragraphs, which is the repetition I was referring to. Furthermore, the word "Minister-Chairman" was incorrectly linked to Prime Minister of Russia, a mistake that you reintroduced with your reversal. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Rasputin and galoshes

Hi Taksen. Do you have any concrete evidence that these were "galoshes" or made out of rubber, and not the usual boots worn at the time? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I was not there, everything is from books or articles on Rasputin, but you noticed something I did not. These details I added three years ago. I will check again. Can't you think of something more serious?Taksen (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC) I still have to find out if the galoshes were rubber.[1][2]

Yes, Taksen, unlike you, I can think of something more serious. See talkpage at Rasputin.

But for what it is worth (which is nothing, unless you check every single Google result to make sure it is about Rasputin), here are the properGoogle results

• Rasputin + galoshes — 177 results
• Rasputin + rubber boots — 184 results
• Rasputin + leather boots 363 results

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rui, it is highly likely Rasputin was wearing his leather boots and galoshes when he left his apartment. When he entered the palace I suppose he took off his galoshes, wearing his boots inside the house. It is hard to believe the drunk and wounded Rasputin was able to put on his galoshes, more interested in leaving the house as quickly as possible. It is also unlikely the murders took off his leather boots when they drove to the Neva. One of his galoshes could have drifted away, we don't know. The other obviously was stuck under the bridge. I will ask my contacts in Russia what is the practice when you enter a house. I suppose you take off your galoshes and put at the front door or aside until you leave the house. I will change the text accordingly. Thanks for your attention.Taksen (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=1363.240;wap2

Using a number of usernames

Hi Taksen. Please have a look at my request here concerning your use of multiple usernames. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Defense

Ten years ago there was no problem using different names on different wikipedias, the Dutch, English, German, French, and long time ago the Frisian. I never changed it, because I did not understand how to work with one username on different wikipedias. Besides my watchlist would get lost. There has never been a bad intention, it is because of Wikipedia itself or my computer, changing daily to different wikipedias.Taksen (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joseph T. Fuhrmann

The article Joseph T. Fuhrmann has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 07:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=722301020&action=compare&url=http://books.google.ca/books/about/Rasputin.html?id=g8rUz8nu4VIC&redir_esc=y

I don't understand the link you send, please be more precise. On 10 May I did not add anything. If it is from Yandex (?) I would like to know which detail I should change. Taksen (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Using your own wording will cause the article/Wikipedia to be unprecise; there must be millions of examples where people tried to write down in their own words what they read and where the outcome is disappointing. Taksen (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Text appears to be from this book https://books.google.ca/books/about/Rasputin.html?id=g8rUz8nu4VIC&redir_esc=y

You must paraphrase. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Today I started an article on Joseph T. Fuhrmann, and added four references within a few hours, there is also an entry in the Spanish Wikipedia. Then you came up. The article was gone within 6 hours, although it says it needs at least one reliable source which could be the Mary Washington University, is not it? If that is not a reliable source than Wikipedia went crazy in my point of view.Taksen (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC) I never saw the page you are referecing to. A new example that most people on Wikipedia are more interested in deleting than in improving.Taksen (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Your bot did not tell me where to look, which is unacceptable and nobody had a chance to improve it! I am not particularly interested in Fuhrmann, but some other people might be. He is an academic, one cannot change much in a account of universities he visited. Wikipedia became unacademic or should we say stupid?Taksen (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Described the issue here User_talk:Doc_James#Joseph_T._Fuhrmann Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Please finish what you started

Re Stepan Petrovich Beletsky: please finish the article, particularly the references that don't lead anywhere. What does Nelipa, p. 52. refer to? Also, please add categories. Thanks, Renata (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Rome and Naples were both not build within a day, but I will take a look. Thanks.Taksen (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Trepov

Thanks for you contributions in Trepov. I do however wonder why you reverted my articles? Both Pipes and Figes clearly say his prestige in the court increased. --Simen113 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

On page 289 Figes mentions Khvostov being dismissed in January, which is not true. It was on March 1916. Then he writes the Tsarina foiled both plans ... mmm. The Khvostov case is hard to understand, and every author has a different view on the intrigues between Khvostov, who was not appointed as Prime Minister and Beletsky who seems to have been fed up with his superior. It is hard to believe Figes figured out what happened exactly. Rasputin's prestige rose at court from August 1915, when the Tsar went to the front, remember that. In November 1916 the "Dark forces" were attacked by Milyukov and Puriskevich. Alexandra should be locked up or send abroad, so she could not interfer. The Tsar and Protopopov should step down and Rasputin removed to solve all the problems in the government, in the Ministries. Russia had to go on with the war, no seperate peace with Germany. Early December 1916 Rasputin feared his death was near. There is a culmination, not in influence but in despair. Both Pipes and Figes wrote the bribes (or corruption) are essential to understand what happened, mix up a few things in one/two sentences, to support their conclusion; not very credible authors in this case. 04:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that prove you are more correct than these two esteemed writers?--Simen113 (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Both authors are incorrect. I have been studying Rasputin for 3,5 years. Don't try to fool me. Neither Figes or Pipes are known as Rasputin experts; they give a general view. Rasputin's prestige rose at court from August 1915, but in November 1916 it was almost over, see Grigori_Rasputin#Government. In the Duma Rasputin and the Imperial couple were attacked heavely.Taksen (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't just take your word for it, that you've studied this. Sources are needed. Currently I have provided some, you have not.--Simen113 (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

My view you can read in Rasputin. It has over 400 references. Good luck.Taksen (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I want to add that I did not mean to create a quarrel. Have a good day.--Simen113 (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your work on my article on the Romanov Tercentenary! Have a good day :)--Simen113 (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Raspoetin, Russische geschiedenis etc.

Hello,

I assume you are Dutch, so let me continue in Dutch. Ik heb gezien dat u ongelooflijk veel hebt bijgedragen aan het artikel over Raspoetin. Wat is volgens u het beste boek over hem (in welke taal dan ook)? Daarnaast vroeg ik me af, mocht u genoeg vertrouwen hebben in uw kennis van de Russische geschiedenis, dan wel van monarchale geschiedenis om het zo te zeggen, of u eens een groep geschiedenisstudenten zou willen toespreken in Utrecht. Met vriendelijke groet, 2001:1C02:1907:9500:596F:C445:F068:5605 (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Dat wil ik wel, via email this user, of via mijn website kan je me bereiken. mvg. Taco Tichelaar.Taksen (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 January

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

• On the State Duma (Russian Empire) page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia Edits

Hello, I'm NotARealBotActuallyAHuman. I have automatically detected that you are a legit editor and a decent human being. I am totally a robot; I aced the Turing test! Please take note of the following: Wees nooit arrogant, maar weet dat je geweldig bent! :-) Thank you, I need some support.Taksen (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Please properly nest your replies on talk pages

To reply on a talk page, this is how it should go; each reply is correctly nested using the correct number of colons:

Original post "What cars do you like?"

First reply "I like Volkswagens!"

Reply #1 to first reply "I think Volkswagens are stupid.."

Reply to reply #1 to first reply "No, they're great!"

Reply #2 to first reply "Me too!"

Second reply "I like Hyundai!"

Reply #1 to second reply "I think Hyundai cars break down easy"

Reply number three "I like Honda!"

Reply number four "I like Saab"

Of course those would all use ~~~~ after them to sign.

Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please accept consensus at Grigori Rasputin

Hi, Taksen. Everybody on Talk:Grigori Rasputin except you seems to be in agreement that the article is too long and contains too much material not directly connected with Rasputin. Keeping a biography article in balance between personal information and background is always a fine line, I know. But the fact is nobody agrees with you about having so much general information about the Russian revolution in Rasputin's bio. They point out that we have plenty of articles about the various Russian Revolutions, for instance Russian Revolution, Revolution of 1905, February Revolution, October Revolution, Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks, etc, see [3]. Short mentions of the relevance of those events along with links to such articles would make Grigori Rasputin not only a more reasonable length for an encyclopedia, but also more focused. Anyway, as long as consensus is against you, please stop adding further overly detailed material to the article, and stop reverting removals, as you did here. Ways that you can change consensus include starting an RFC, and taking the dispute to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I've been looking at the article and its talkpage, and it's my opinion as an administrator that you have two options: either attempt to change consensus, or resign yourself to the fact that the other editors disagree with you and stop adding the kind of material that's being criticized. The way you have been going is becoming disruptive. Bishonen | talk 11:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC).

That is a friendly reaction, thanks, the others seem just to be hostile. I cannot remember something friendly or encouraging from them'; they try to delete as much as they can. I have not seen anybody who said some details could be moved to other articles, which I usually do. It is strange after four years, probably unusual, working on the article that people are deleting as much as they can.Taksen (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Taksen, "deleting as much as they can" isn't just an overstatement, it's also incorrect. I agree with Bishonen. The article has so much detail, and so much of it not on-topic, that it is not an easy read (and I'm putting that mildly). Your efforts to improve are coverage are appreciated, but please be mindful of a. our readership and b. the very idea of collaborative editing.

BTW, I just had a look at your first lemma, Albert Burgh--thank you. What a lovely little house. But 2006 was a different time--if you revisit the article, when you have a minute, can you add some footnotes? Any expansion will be made difficult since it would involve inserting text and accompanying citations. But to combine the two topics, now that I look at the article--"Oldenbarneveldt had pleaded for peace with Spain and for shrinking the state army." Yes, this is true, but I don't see how it is relevant to the article; what matters is the fine, but more important is that apparently Burgh had encouraged Vondel to write the play, which would explain why he paid the fine. In other words, a kind of completeness (the kind deemed unnecessary in the other article) goes at the expense of really relevant information.

Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Drmies. Articles of more than 200 kB (~30 pages) exist for topics that require depth and detail, but it's typical that articles of such size get split into two or more sub-articles. However, there are ~1,000 articles larger than 200 kB, the largest being ~1.1 MB (as of Dec 2016). I gathered all the information on the February Revolution to see how trustworthy the Wikipedia article on the February Revolution is. (I added there already from what I found.) I will take a look at Albert Burgh after ten years, but as you may understand I am very busy nowadays. Even with enjoying the weather. Thank you for the time you took.Taksen (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hoi Taksen--my argument wasn't so much about size as it was about content. I agree with many of the comments that I read on the talk page, but I am not going to weigh in there since I don't think I need to and I don't want to look like I'm beating up on you. I hope you will take my note on relevance seriously; I think one of the things that should come out of the conversation there is that it seems that your idea of what content is necessary and relevant differs from what others think. I also think that you have done Wikipedia great service and I understand that being criticized is not easy. I am glad that you are being busy; being busy in Amsterdam is a good thing, and I miss it dearly. All the best, Drmies (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing other users' comments

Don't add tags into other editors' comments - it makes it look like they included the tag themselves, at the time, which is confusing. Also, edit summaries such as "The Politburo couldn't have done better! Did you have a headace yesterday?" are inappropriate - comment on the content, not the contributor. --McGeddon (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Your user page and talk page seem to be the same. No interest in discussing anything with you.Taksen (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to argue with logic like that! EEng 13:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Civility

Treating other editors with respect is a core policy of Wikipedia. Please do not engage in personal attacks as you did in the edit summary here. Always assume good faith and discuss any content disputes on the talk page. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And again, so soon? Maybe consider taking a brief wikibreak. Mathglot (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability

When you make changes to an article, you may not remove sourced material without a good explanation, which you may provide in the edit summary if it fits, or more likely on the Talk page. Removing sourced material and substituting it with unsourced text like you did here is doubly mistaken. If you think that sourced material in an article is wrong, you can bring it up on the talk page, and/or tag the suspect content with a {{dubious}} or {{disputed}} tag, and add an additional reference of your own contradicting the existing reference.

This is not Dutch Wikipedia, which has much laxer policies about such things; here at English Wikipedia the core policies of verifiability and citing reliable sources to verify your content is taken very seriously. Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to reliable sources. If you add unsourced material on English Wikipedia, you can expect your edits to be challenged and reverted. This is part of the normal editing process on Wikipedia, and if you disagree with the reversion the next step is to discuss it on the talk page of the article, and to attempt to achieve consensus for your change. Of course, the simplest way to avoid being reverted in the first place is simply to provide sources for your added material. Mvg, Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sergei Trufanov

If you get a chance, could you take a look at the last sentence in the second paragraph of the Biography section of the Sergei Trufanov article? Looks like you added that sentence, but there's a word missing and nobody's sure what it is supposed to be. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Johann Philipp Graumann

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Taksen, thanks for creating Johann Philipp Graumann!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Christoph Willibald Gluck

Do you mean that the citations in that section are also applicable to the first three paragraphs, which do not contain any footnotes? If yes, please add them to the appropriate locations (taking out some of the "citation needed" tags which were not added by me). If no, then the maintenance tag should not be removed. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 22:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The Perfect Storm

LS, I removed the link to the article about the movie The Perfect Storm, which -in my opinion,- has nothing to do with the abovementioned article. My action was turned back, with this comment added: "because of the movie it is called the perfect storm, please stick to your own subjects)" I would like to know why in an article about an 18th century Dutch merchant, involved in an economic crisis following the Seven Years War, there is a reference to a movie, based on a book about a fishermans' boat being caught in a storm at sea in 1991. If possible without any smart remarks. Regards, Marc aka Mohawkmarcje.

Girobank?

In this edit you added to Frederick the Great

... and to stabilize the economy a girobank.

But Girobank (in both mentions here) say 20th century. And the link from there to de:Girobank seems to be about something different. (I don't think those two articles should be linked to each other?)

Perhaps you meant Giro here? Which links to de:Girokonto. Hey, do we have enough confusing names yet? :-)

Anyway, could you correct your added link to whichever article/meaning/definition you really meant to reference? Shenme (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Christina of Sweden

Thank you for the good work you do, especialy on this article lately! I must say, however, that your personal opinion about what you find " boring" has had a bit too much iunfluence. Please consider what is enclopedically relevant before any such personal opinions of ours, yours, mine or anybody elses. Adding pictures of gorgeous ladies, who barely knew Christina, and removing rare photographs such as that of the sarcophagus, are not constructive changes, I think. Nor is adding a title that hardly anyone has ever heard of, immediately after her name at the top, as if that were the most important fact about her. I'll rather see a bit of boring-but-vital than too much construed-and-fun. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hey Sergei. In my point of view it is not right to discuss the article on Christina in private with me. Sorry.Taksen (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Feofan listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feofan. Since you had some involvement with the Feofan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)