text:
Laughing Cavalier

The Laughing Cavalier (1624) is a portrait by the Dutch Golden Age painter Frans Hals in the Wallace Collection in London. It was described by art historian Seymour Slive as "one of the most brilliant of all Baroque portraits". The title is an invention of the Victorian public and press, dating from its exhibition in the opening display at the Bethnal Green Museum in 1872–1875, just after its arrival in England, after which it was regularly reproduced as a print, and became one of the best known old master paintings in Britain. The unknown subject is in fact not laughing, but can be said to have an enigmatic smile, much amplified by his upturned moustache.

Description
The portrait measures 83 × 67.3 cm (32.7 × 26.5 in) and is inscribed at top right Æ'TA SVÆ 26/Aº1624, which expands to aetatis suae 26, anno 1624 in Latin and means that the portrait was painted when the sitter was 26 and in the year 1624, and was therefore born in 1597 or 1598. The identity of the man is unknown, and though the recorded 19th-century titles in Dutch, English and French mostly suggest a military man, or at least an officer in one of the part-time militia companies that were often the subjects of group portraits, including some by Hals and later Rembrandt's The Night Watch (1642), in fact he was as likely to be a wealthy civilian. Art historian Pieter Biesboer suggests the painting may depict Dutch cloth merchant Tieleman Roosterman (1598–1673), who is also the subject of another Hals portrait.

The composition is lively and spontaneous, and despite the apparent labour involved in the gorgeous, and very expensive, silk costume, close inspection reveals long, quick brush strokes. The turning pose and low viewpoint are found in other portraits by Hals and here allow emphasis on the embroidered sleeve and lace cuff. There are many emblems in the embroidery: signifying "the pleasures and pains of love" are "bees, arrows, flaming cornucopiae, lovers' knots and tongues of fire", while an obelisk or pyramid signifies strength and Mercury's cap and caduceus fortune.

In general, commissioned portraits such as this rarely showed adults smiling until the late 18th century, though smiling is often seen in tronies and figures in genre painting. But Hals is an exception to the general rule and often showed sitters with broader smiles than here, and in informal poses that bring an impression of movement and spontaneity to his work.

The effect of the eyes appearing to follow the viewer from every angle is a result of the subject being depicted as looking directly forward, toward the artist's point of view, combined with being a static two dimensional representation of this from whichever angle the painting itself is viewed.

History
The painting's provenance only goes back to a sale in The Hague in 1770; after further Dutch sales it was bought by the Franco-Swiss banker and collector the Comte de Pourtalès-Gorgier in 1822. After his death the painting was acquired at the auction of his collection in Paris in 1865 by Richard Seymour-Conway, 4th Marquess of Hertford, who outbid Baron James de Rothschild at more than six times the sales estimate. It was in Hertford's Paris home in 1871, listed as portrait d'un homme ("portrait of a man"), and then brought to London, probably for the purpose of exhibiting it in a large and long loan exhibition of old master paintings at Bethnal Green, which was deliberately sited away from the West End of London to attract the working classes. The exhibition was a huge success and A Cavalier (the catalogue title) a particular hit with both public and the critics; it played a considerable part in raising the critical estimation of Hals in England. By 1888, when it was again exhibited at the Royal Academy, it had become Laughing Cavalier, though a cleaning in the intervening period (in 1884) may have changed the effect. The critic in the Athenaeum noted a brighter appearance, but also that "The man smiles rather than laughs". Hertford's collection was bequeathed to his natural son Sir Richard Wallace Bt., whose widow donated it and his London house to the nation as the Wallace Collection. The "eyes following you round the room" trope has long been a stand-by in British comedy, used by Pete and Dud in The Art Gallery, among many others, sometimes in the form of a portrait with cut-away eyes that can be used as a peephole.

Derivatives
The Laughing Cavalier is used by McEwan's beer as its logo. It has been modified showing the Laughing Cavalier enjoying the beer.

In the Scarlet Pimpernel adventure series by Emma Orczy, The Laughing Cavalier is a prequel recounting the story of the supposed subject of the painting, who is an ancestor of her main hero, the Scarlet Pimpernel, Sir Percy Blakeney.

The Laughing Cavalier features in The Case Of The Mirror Of Portugal, episode six of the TV series The Rivals Of Sherlock Holmes.

Television series The Monkees features an episode (S02E05) that revolves around the painting and a modified copy as a plot device.

A small copy of “Laughing Cavalier” can be seen hanging on a wall in the Harris home in the 1959 murder mystery film “Sapphire” (40mins)

title: Laughing Cavalier


text:
User talk:Arrigo

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes ( Redwolf24 10:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC) ) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes ( Redwolf24 ) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

Not really..
Hi. First, Welcome to Wikipedia! Please, do verify an article's history and talk page before claiming "vandalism". I reverted the anon's edits because then he severely edited the article a couple of hours after I had added the tag. I didn't edit the article further (which also resulted in not removing the tag) to prevent altercations with the anon that were ensuing from connected discussions. When the anon complained about the tag, I told him to go ahead with his edits. Those tags are not untouchable, they exist to help the community work better together. I actually don't know why it was left there for so long after I declared that I would not be editing the article for now. You see, in most cases it's all about countext. No worries though. For more on vandalism, please check Vandalism. Cheers, Redux 23:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl
Please do not move a page if you don't know what you are doing. You created a multiple redirect that tangled everything together. To undo it I had to undo your move. Wait until there is consensus for the move before doing it, and make sure you do it properly. Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 20:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

1. The previous move by Deb was without any consensus. High-handed act, resulting in an impractical title. You should be forbidding her to do such. (Most of which I have seen about deb's doings here, indicate that she does not necessarily know what she is doing.)

2. There was no tangled, no problematic redirect. At least not before you did whatever you did. Your move should be reverted. (Btw, speaking about problems created by less-than-thorougly-thought moves, have you yet repaired the problem you created to the attached Talk page when you made the ridiculous page Elizabeth of wied (sic!) - see Talk:Elizabeth of wied: does such exist still?) Arrigo 00:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Accusations
I notice that you've now accused the creators of the articles on Lady Catherine Grey, Lady Mary Grey, etc. of being part of some sort of nebulous conspiracy to add "titulary" to article titles, when none of those creators appear to have any pattern of doing so; nor do they appear to have any connection to the people with whom you've been sparring. As someone who would prefer to work with you rather than against you, I would like to respectfully suggest that you relax a bit and try to assume good faith on the part of other users when you see an "incorrect" title, rather than getting angry. I know it's easy to get worked up about things in Wikipedia (I've certainly done so myself), but a calm and professional demeanor will, I think, greatly enhance your standing. Your campaign to remove titles of nobility from article titles is, as far as I can see, sound, and I realize you think you're doing a great service to Wikipedia by bringing them in line with the standards; but your abrupt movement of articles and attacks on people who protest have been rather high-handed, and I think that the more you do that, the more people will write you off as an obsessive crank rather than a useful contributor. (And if they do lodge a protest about your behavior, the fact that you're correct about moving the articles doesn't mean your behavior will be upheld.) Wikipedia is always under construction; taking an extra week to get some consensus on a move isn't the end of the world, and doing so is likely to defuse a lot of the hostility directed at you. Be that as it may, I wish you the best in your work and hope you obtain a peaceful resolution to your conflicts. Choess 03:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see, certain namings were changes, not (always) made by creators of article. Admittedly, the edit history too often shows very badly where the heading comes from, and misunderstandings about such source can easily happen. It seems very obvious, checking the edit history of the first article you listed, that there was a renaming very recently, and that the curent heading is not from the creator of the article. Arrigo 09:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"fabrications and resembling"
Your beliefs, whatever such are, mean nothing here.

I have not given you any permission to change mine, nor use my signature.

Re your ideas, you seem to grasp the policy inadequately anyway, and are making baseless allegations. Your accusations do not hold water, unless there is sockpuppetry used in some vote.

As you Choess have used my name as signature somewhere, I have to revert your such action. Arrigo 00:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Wiki-stalkers are not welcome to write here. Such will be removed, as was removed a previous rambling. Arrigo 08:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

no need to answer to personal questions
I saw somewhere a question which attempts to ask publicly what is a user's IP connection. I think such questions violate some principles of privacy, are typical of stalkers, and do not deserve answer. Arrigo 08:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop insulting Deb
Please stop insulting Deb. Deb is a highly respected user with a long and credible history behind her. She is only raising genuine issues to do with naming. She does not warrant your insults and accusations.

Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 00:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

As I have not been insulting her, your request remains somewhat erratic. Let me say that her creation of bogus honorary consuls, bogus addresses, bogus consulates, and so on, makes me doubt her respectability, credibility and "genuine issues": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3A69.10.141.71&diff=19610149&oldid=19600621. Human actions are often somewhat stupid. Dear Jtdirl, (were you less hotheaded and less careless) you would comprehend that telling openly about actions made here are not insults nor improper accusations. (Have you thought that if accusations were forbidden, what is then your position having accused users from this and that all over.) However, I am assuming good faith, and using Hanlon's razor attributing actions rather to stupidity than to malice. Also Deb's. Arrigo 08:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

styles
I've proposed a possible solution to end the style wars. you opinions are most welcome. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Alexandras of Greece
As a result of changes made by you and User:Matjlav, the two different Princesses Alexandra of the Glucksberg-Greece branch (one the daughter of George I of Greece, the other the daughter of Alexander I of Greece) are once again totally screwed up - after I already straightened them out once. Not only that, but thanks to an anon, Alexandra Georgievna redirects to Princess Alexandra of Greece - which redirects back! I am extremely unpleased that you all are breaking things that used to work fine. Please stop it. Noel (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The original arrangement of I-do-not-know-whose, to put two women into one article, was one of the reasons for the tendency to be screwn up. A "straightening" at that stage was of course doomed to highly likely be frustrated in future, thus I have not very much pity to you having done that - you could have separated the persons and made your straughtening only after that, whereby the straightening would have been on more tenable ground. Let me say that an illusion "things used to work fine" is almost delusion. My action was to put one of them, Alexandra of Greece, to her proper location here, and I followed very carefully the NC in doing that - and corrected a bunch of links. I would have been tolerant to the other to remain at Princess Alexandra of Greece, though I prefer another kind of location, towards which she has recently been moving. I will not accept any responsibility of actions by Matjlav. I am unpleased at unreasonable accusations. Arrigo 20:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The originator of the article which then was solely about the Queen consort of Yugoslavia, was a certain user Jtdirl. He obviously then (in 2003) wanted her to be "Princess" in the heading of the article and thus created the article at Princess Alexandra of Greece, despite of the fact that it was well known to the writer himself that she was a deceased queen consort. Of course, the usage in history boks and works of reference to use pre-marital name without any title (e.g Catherine of Aragon) of deceased queen consorts has a long history and should have been familiar already in 2003 to any professional. Arrigo 20:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No. I followed the then way Wikipedia wrote articles on royalty. Try just once to get something right. Your chronic mispresentation of the motivations and actions of everyone else who disagrees with you (which pretty much means everyone on Wikipedia) is getting tedious at this stage. It also is exceedingly childish. FearÉIREANN[[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\(caint)  00:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Greek Royal Family descends from Byzantine Greeks
Thanks for the hint. I have never heard that story before, but I'm sure it would have pleased King Georgios (Prince Vilhelm) to know that he was connected to the former rulers of Greece. No matter what, he was an excellent king. It's just too bad for Greece, he died so soon. I'll try to see if I can find the source behind the list. Best regards from Denmark. Valentinian 23:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Romania
Here is the text of the 1923 constitution:

 * Art. 34. Puterile constitutionale ale Regelui sunt ereditare in linie coboritoare, directa si legitima a Majestatii Sale Regelui Carol I de Hohenzollern Sigmaringen, din barbat in barbat, prin ordinul de primogenitura si cu exclusiunea perpetua a femeilor si coboritorilor lor. Coboritorii Majestatii Sale vor fi crescuti in religiunea ortodoxa a Rasaritului.

 * The constitutional powers of the King are hereditary in the line of direct and legitimate descendants of King Carol I, male to male in order of primogeniture, with the perpetual exclusion of females and their descendants. The descendants of the King must be Eastern Orthodox.

So the King had no power to decide unilaterally that his daughter could succeed him. Since Michael's claim to be King of Romania depends on the text of the constitution under which he inherited the throne, he cannot ignore its provisions in the matter of the succession without negating his own status. Adam 23:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Japanese Emperors
There is a discussion going on right now in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) about what to name the Japanese emperor articles and we have pretty much reached a consensus on naming them all "Emperor X". You are free to contribute to the discussion but please stop moving these articles unilaterally. -Jefu 09:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement with the naming of the articles on Japanese emperors does not give you the unilateral ability to make them whatever you want. If you have something to contribute go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) and convince enough people that you are right before making any further changes. -Jefu 22:51, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Fumihito, Prince Akishino
I don't see a difference in the names. What is the move request for? I will be removingthe merge request.--Jondel 07:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

C(a)esaropapism
Hi Arrigo, I just created Cesaropapism as a redirect to Caesaropapism. Maybe that page needs some structuring and cleanup: it presents C(a)esaropapism as a Western phenomenon for more than half of the page, while you indicated it as typically Byzantine in your contribution to Emperor. I'm no expert, but very interested to learn about it! --Francis Schonken 14:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Queen Victoria Surname
This dialog has been move to a separate discussion page: Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom/Surname. --StanZegel 18:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Japanese Emperors redux
Well, you've certainly managed to make a mess of things by moving around the emperors and changing redirects. This has resulted in a large number of links that don't work. Please be more careful about this sort of thing in the future. - Nat Krause 03:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * After checking, I found you Nat have been moving around emperors and changing redirects. What should we say about that? And, contrary to your some writing, you have not been moving them to place where they were, instead you have moved them to places you want and where they have never been. Also, some of your edits and moves created a mess of things.

Non-English names
Exactly why do you say that renaming Yamamura Sadako as Sadako Yamamura is not controversial? That's a very controversial move. You're imposing western cultural imperialistic view on Japanese names, even when in western media, atleast half the time, the family name still comes first. 132.205.46.188 20:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Because of Naming Conventions of Wikipedia, please read Manual of Style for Japan-related articles. Kindly write your opposition to the talk page of the article in question, but still I doubt an exception be made, as the Wikipedia NC is what it is.

 * If you read it, it says there is no agreement on proper order. 132.205.46.188 20:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

As you are interested about western influences in Japanese namings, have you btw visited one big discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) - there are alternatives such as "Emperor X", "X Emperor" and "X Tenno". Btw, your vote would in all likelihood not get counted in these votes as long as you do not use a registered username.

Not to dredge up any more The Ring messes....
...but since you're interested in this, I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to vet the expansions I made over at Samara Morgan and The Cursed Videotape. Both of those draw from the Sadako article, and I would appreciate a second pair of eyes on this. thanks.--Mitsukai 21:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Lame edit wars
Hi, I heard about Sweden/Norway edit war when it spread to English wikipedia, the place where it appeared in English wikipedia is indicated with a link in my contribution to the Lamest edit wars ever page. Thanks for the cleanup of my contribution to that page, btw.

Did you already find time to look at the Caesaropapism topic I mentioned higher on this page? Seems more interesting than participating in lame edit wars.

--Francis Schonken 09:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

moving pages
May I know why you simply moved Aiko, Princess Toshi of Japan and removed the renaming tag without waiting for the end of the discussion first? Also you have moved Empress Dowager Teimei and Empress Dowager Shōken without a discussion first? After I reverted that move you moved it again? Apparently you have also been moving japanese emperors and empresses without waiting for the outcome of the discussion? Why? with kind regards. Gryffindor 15:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gryffindor, you should really cease to move and also to name any pages here. It seems that expertised editors have recently been correcting your actions all around the place. Would it be sufficient to you to focus on improving contents of articles, not even trying to move them. I guess if you'd refrain so, thos work will be easier both to you and to a number of more expertised editors who recently have faced an increased workload particularly in articles where you have been. Then, as you have a habit to use/to add Royal Highnesses and other styles to articles, I would like to point you to read some ideas at Hypercorrection - that behavior, also outside grammar, is an usual trap of novices and/or ignorants. You should know that we have nowadays a new policy of styles in biographies. Arrigo 20:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see that you have also moved the article of Princess Srinagarindra, The Princess Mother of Thailand even though there are no clear rules regarding the naming convention, and you have moved the name that was set by administrator Violetriga. You are violating Wikipedia rules, please stop moving articles without valid discussion first if it is controversial. Please revert your moves and wait until there is a clear consensus on naming that is acceptable to everyone instead of taking unilateral action. Or would you also suggest renaming Genghis Khan and simply naming him Genghis or Temüjin? There is a solution to everything, so please let it be discussed first. Gryffindor 21:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * hello Arrigo. What have you done, after my question to you, you have now have created a redirect for Princess Srinagarindra, The Princess Mother of Thailand which leads to a double redirect without fixing the link? I had trouble even finding the original article anymore. What are you trying to do? Please stop moving and creating new double-redirects, you are completely messing the links up that way. I'm afraid I have to warn you, if you do not stop these kinds of activities, an RfC will have to be created on you. Please cooperate and at least clearly state your intentions to explain yourself. We can discuss about anything, but please stop moving. Gryffindor [[Image:Flag of Austria (state).svg|20px]] 09:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

renaming Empress Dowagers
Hello Arrigo, why have you moved Empress Dowager Shoken? If you take a look at Empress Dowager Cixi you can see that the name "Dowager" is clearly included in an article's name? Therefore the article was named "Empress Dowager Shoken" but you moved it without discussion or asking first? Why are you doing this? Please stop moving articles without discussion or at least get in touch with the creators and contributers of an article first before you start moving. Gryffindor 22:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gryffindor, your ability to assess namings of those is so flawed that there is no need to continue that. I will oppose your attempts to clutter article headings with stupid or unnecessary elements.

Additionally, Antares-Gryffindor, it seems that you have not grasped the manner WP is working. You are reverting contents blindly, trying to protect some repetitive styles (which anyway are to be condensed into one infobox). And, when you wrote your contributions (or possibly copyvios from websites) into articles, you of course did not retain any copyrights.

 * Please answer the questions, why are you moving articles without waiting for a consensus first and thus creating a lot of trouble? Are you not aware of the damage you are creating this way? You should talk to the users first instead of trying to rename articles at your own whim. This a project that is based on consensus. Gryffindor [[Image:Flag of Austria (state).svg|20px]] 23:08, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gryffindor, neé Antares911, you have got the answers you deserve. Above and in relevant talk pages. No use to you to litter my usertalk page any further. Arrigo 13:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not becoming to come to require an answer to anything. As people are saying, you cannot force anyone to answer. It actually is also because there always are some extreme persons asking all sorts of things, and any answer will never suffice. Not to hint that you Gryffindor are one of such crazies, but you have certainly posed several questions rudely above. There would be better formuations to you, Gryffindor, to use if you actually desire real discussion: such as for example "I noticed your (whatever), and I was hoping you could further explain it".

removal of renaming tags
dear Arrigo, please do not remove the renaming tags of articles if the discussion is not over or no clear majority exists. You do not have the authority to "approve" or "deny" or even remove renaming tags. Please stop moving articles (some of which have been named above already) without discussion, please stop removing renaming tags on any article. Your behaviour is disruptive and not acceptable and might get you listed on an RfC so before it gets to that, please explain your moves so that we can discuss and try to find a solution that is acceptable to everyone. But please do not take this kind of unilateral action on any article. Gryffindor 14:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gryffindor (neé User:Antares911), I already warned you against littering my usertalk page. That warning holds, and your violations against it are regarded as sort of spamming. About the issue you now brought, YOU have no right to use renaming tags improperly in Wikipedia. If you propose renaming, you need to write your proposition to the centralized page WP:RM, under the day when proposal is made, and only of such that are written there are to be tagged at the article talkpage. Instead, you have disrupted Wikipedia by leaving lone tags in very very many articles. Anyone is entitled to remove such lone ones, as improper. The Wikipedia community would thrive much better, were you Gryffindor to receive a ban to move any pages, a ban to request any moves of articles, a ban to write any styles into texts, and a ban to write any titles to article headings - and also some sort of "idiocy parole". Arrigo 08:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi
1) The edit I removed was not signed. It appeared to be by an anonymous editor that had been told several times not to leave unsigned messages on talk pages.

2) The removed text was disruptive, in the sense of Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The "point" 217.140.193.123 was trying to make is that it's all lameness. Adding further lameness to illustrate that point is "Gaming the system", according to that guideline.

3) The anonymous user has been properly warned, see User_talk:217.140.193.123

I'm convinced you try to stop the lameness over WoO (and other topics of the same order) as much as I am. On second thought I think I maybe didn't give you a full answer yet why I didn't want to change my vote for the nth time: If I'd change it it would be again to the "no vote" option because of "it's absurd to try to solve this issue by a vote, while it apparently doesn't work towards consensus". I kept my vote on "WoO redirect to disambig" because I'm still convinced (but again, that's only my personal intuition, based on my personal wiki-experience) that will ultimately be the solution that is least challenged over a long period of time. So, no I don't feel like discussing this much further, it's taken enough of my time. And yes, a vote is not necessary to keep that solution in place (to which you helped, thanks!), because a reference to the POV guideline suffises.

And I continue to try to keep those out that seem not so much intrested in improving wikipedia as in fighting their own feuds.

--Francis Schonken 12:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Francis, a bit of advice: you cannot require anyone to sign their comments. And, comments on talk pages are not removed just because they are unsigned. Additionally, commenting is a recommended way to express the point, the undesired way would be not to comment, but to make it, for example writing lame articles or making lame wars. Arrigo 12:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I think also making lame requests to move count as WP:POINT lame actions. Francis, you really should not make all those lame requests. 217.140.193.123 09:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for cooperation
Please give me some time to answer, my edits are currently very slow because my webserver is under DOS attack since a few hours after my IP appeared on talk:WoO. So that's why I removed my own edit disclaiming involvement in a misunderstanding between 217.140.193.123 and Philip Baird Shearer, that has long been solved by apologies by Philip, see User_talk:217.140.193.123. That edit of mine is of no relevance whatsoever to that page any more (since user 217.140.193.123 already quite some time ago removed that part of the WoO talk page that was the origin of the misunderstanding).

So, please give me 15 minutes to remove again what you have just been restoring, OK? I think my explanation above was also clear enough about the reasons why the anonymous "lame" paragraph could be removed.

Thanks for cooperation.

I also put:

 * Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you.

here, not knowing what you're steering at - for now, I accept it was all in good faith.

--Francis Schonken 12:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia:Non-main_namespace_pages_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever

from Chardon
Hi, The William of Orange discussion seems to have descended into some sort of bureaucratic struggle. I'm not that familiar with the finer points of Wikipedia practices so for the moment I'm keeping myself out of it. Cheers Chardon 09:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC) (moved from userpage where it originally was)

Test
No, no, I don't see how you can accuse me of personal attacks.

It's al standard procedure: "adding nonsense" is defined as one of the types of vandalism. Any vandalism in that sense can be related to the topic at hand (and clever vandalism usually is!). The next step, if not unambiguously sure the vandalism was intended, while e.g. it might have been unintended disruptive behaviour, is to give a test message.

If the disruptive behaviour continues, it's up to sysop at hand to judge on that (that is, after listing on the proper page requiring admin intervention).

So, finally I'm saying: it's not up to me to decide ultimately whether this was vandalism, it sure looks so to me, but it's only if the receiver ignores that his behaviour might have been perceived as disruptive that an admin'll have to make the discernment.

--Francis Schonken 13:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Francis, I again repeat: you should not erase any comments of others from article talk pages. And, your judgement of what is nonsense is not necessarily objective. Also, as you have been a participant there, your should refrain from deciding if others' comments are nonsense or not. If you do not personally or for some other reason, like the comment, that however is no reason for erasure.

Again, I remind you Francis that you should understand that anonymous users are as entitled as you to contribute to Wikipedia and as entitled as you to comment on relevant issues at talk pages.

Francis, I reminded you earlier using words "you should refrain from making personal attacks". If you are not making personal attacks, then it is easy to you to refrain from such. Kindly be reminded that you are not allowed to ake personal attacks. And that some others may regard some of your comments as personal attacks.

Maud of Wales
You've moved Maud of Wales to "Maud of United Kingdom". Please note that the United Kingdom has the definitive article the, please go back and correct the article title if you're going to move it. Thanks Craigy (talk) 01:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Monarchs of Hawaii
As you have done work with some monarchies, please take a look at this too. There's been a huge fuss lately over whether articles on Hawaii's monarchs are in the right location and there are some people who'd like to change the format used in naming the articles (e.g. one user wants to move the article Kamehameha I to Kamehameha I, King of Hawaii. We're having a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style, and your views on the conflict would be appreciated. Arrigo 13:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Seems the issue is reasonably settled to me, only really one dissenting user. Shout again if someone starts adding redunant 'of Hawaii' endings to articles on people. --zippedmartin 00:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Deb abused admin powers, by deleting a page without AfD
Moved from Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents by The Uninvited Co., Inc.

I have contributed to an old page, then at Elisabeth of Bohemia, which was a disambiguation page. Deb decided to delete it - according to Deletion log, by doing "21:12, 31 August 2005 Deb deleted "Elisabeth of Bohemia" (Deleted to make way for move)". No AfD. She obviously wanted to move another article to that placement, leading in that case also to POV (see current Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia) endorsing a royal pretension from era of religious warring in Germany. I think Deb has sort of proprietary attitude to certain articles and names, including this one. I cannot remember all contents of the old page, and anyway its GDFL history should be preserved, so it is incorrect to write a new similar page which does not credit earlier contributors. I request the deleted page to be brought back. (I sent a message to Deb's usertalk page about the issue -) Also, some admonishment due to abuse of admin powers would be appropriate. Arrigo 22:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You seem to have forgotten that you moved the disambiguation page and then removed the reference to it from the article. Deb 22:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The old page was just a disambiguation page. A link to the disambiguation page is at the top of the article. This doesn't look like abuse of admin powers to me. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)
 * Dear Theresa, it is not the same disambiguation page. Arrigo 22:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty similar to me Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Due to capabilities revealed, it seems to me not to be a big error if that WP church begins to call Theresa as "Mother Theresa Knott of the Impaired Vision"
 * Dear Theresa, you are welcome to check the diff in edit history. There are plenty of differences in the content. I am hopeful that you can see it. Arrigo 22:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Aside from a couple of spelling changes and tightening of the descriptions, there are no substantive changes. There is the removal of a red link to Elisabeth, Duchess of Luxembourg, but that's it. These "differences" are trivial. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, Deb is lying above. I have not moved the disambiguation page. As far as I know, it always was at Elisabeth of Bohemia. Kindly return it, so it can be viewed - Deb's lying gets revealed. Arrigo 22:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (I'd just like to point out that, if that were true, you couldn't have moved "Elisabeth of Bohemia" to "Elisabeth of England" in the first place. Deb 22:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Well, that article then was not at Elisabeth of Bohemia - it was at Elizabeth of Bohemia. At Elisabeth of Bohemia was the old disambiguation page, where many users had contributed. I believe the edit histories etc will reveal your misrepresentation. Arrigo 22:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A total of 5 users contributed to the disambiguation page, if that's your definition of "many". No useful or vital information was lost at all. And for the record, no, I don't think any abuse of admin powers is at work here. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that it certainly isn't abuse, but it would've been better if Deb had done what User:Dragons flight did below and preserved the page history. It's always better to preserve the page history in a case like this, even if it just had 5 users contributing to it. It's an easy mistake to make, though, and it didn't really affect anything in the long run. Aquillion 23:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * And Arrigo continues with his "I control the naming of articles" attitude. Please discuss things properly rather than complaining, and I see no reason to think this was an abuse of powers. violet/riga (t) 22:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * For Crying Out Loud. Doesn't Arrigo and his other IP identities ever stop his personal campaign of attacks against people he dislikes. Fear ÉIREANN [[Image:Ireland coa.png|10px]]\(caint)  22:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * His attacks on Deb seem endless at this stage. (He'll blame her if it rains on his washing, next!) All Deb did was sort out a problem with a disambigulation page. A Arrigo's personal vendettas against people are getting more childish by the day. What next? When Wikipedia crashes will he blame Deb for deliberately ensuring it crashed to stop an edit he was doing??? (And watch now: his pet IP 'fan' will no doubt appear here to echo his master's voice and blame her - and me - for everything bar world hunger, though he's probably blame us for that at some stage too!) Fear ÉIREANN [[Image:Ireland coa.png|10px]]\(caint) 22:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Again sort of rant and ramble, also irrelevant. Please refrain from such personal attacks, Jtdirl. Arrigo 22:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I ask whether disambiguation pages are exempt from proper deletion processes. We should be allowed to know it if that's true. Please Violetriga and Theresa, answer to this question. Arrigo 22:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I am going to take a couple minutes to reshuffle the pages so that the old disambig page's history is incorporated in the new disambig page. You guys can work out the rest. This will take a couple minutes but all the article locations will be as they are now when I finish. Dragons flight 22:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. Elisabeth of Bohemia (disambiguation) now also has the history of the disambig page deleted by Deb's move.  The rest of the issues here are yours to work out.  Dragons flight 23:00, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

This is not the proper place to document a dispute, Arrigo. Please take this to dispute resolution, or the arb com, if you wish to pursue your options (I do think, though, that Deb did not abuse her admin powers, and do urge you to reconsider). Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have moved this to Arrigo's talk page to better facilitate discussion of what appears to be a matter that does not require administrator intervention, and that is therefore off-topic for the Noticeboard. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Certainly, it does appear that I was mistaken about where the article had been moved from by Arrigo, which is how I came to delete a disambiguation page in the belief that it was a redirect created by the move.  I apologise to the wikipedia community for any confusion caused, and thanks to those named above who sorted it out in my absence.  It's good when everyone works together like that. Deb 11:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, for a person to begin to so-calledly to return a page, I would have expected the person, an admin, at least to check its edit history - there are clear documents where the page came from.

Royal pain-in-the-asses
To be extremely blunt, I care not one whit about the naming and styles for 99.999% of the Wikipedia articles about any lucky-by-birth stiff who had some pretentions to a hereditary right to rule others or had the remotest ancestral connections to such a person. Once in a blue moon I will add my two centavos to a discusion, but that is it. Blank Verse  ∅  15:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice:))) Arrigo 15:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Elisabeth of Bohemia"

 * I did not remove material from Wikipedia even once - much less repeatedly. I supported its move, which is fully documented, to Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia.
 * I am not interested in Francis's war with you, and whne I finish this message I will tell him so. I supported (and support) you on Thailand, remember? (I think of this as much the same issue: simple and natural usage versus a guideline; you differ, although I still do not see on what grounds.)
 * Please count to twenty and calm down.

With respect and Wikilove,

Septentrionalis 12:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments in talkpages should not be moved. And I have specifically forbidden move of mine. Arrigo 12:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Burgundy
What on earth are you doing to the Dukes of Burgundy? You've left a complete hash of double and triple redirects, and Philip III has lost his ordinal. Choess 13:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Too long a page history for moving, isn't it? Put it up for a move vote, I suppose, citing the naming conventions. Francis will oppose it, most likely, but he's probably the only one. Once it's successfully in place, we can clean up the redirects. Choess 13:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Request filed. Two things:

 * 1) You've left a lot of double and triple redirects lying around. I guess it makes sense not to fix the ones for Philip III, Duke of Burgundy until the article moves there, but there's at least one for Charles, Duke of Burgundy, and you should really make sure to fix them — people will be more favorably inclined towards your moves if you keep things tidy.
 * 2) The Kings of Spain were only ever titular Dukes of Burgundy; is it a good idea to add titular nobility to the categories (like Dukes of Burgundy) and so on? Choess 17:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Spanish: They used it particularly for Burgundian Circle, which was formally established by Ch V. I think that suffices - though we can always discuss. I am against endorsing pretensions, but I wish to have a proper cat to show how they held Low Countries & county of Burgundy. Arrigo 17:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * We already have cats for Counts of Flanders, Counts of Hainault, and Counts of Holland, which covers most of it. You could probably create a new cat for Counts of Burgundy, too, but be aware that User:Center-for-Medieval-Studies insists on referring to it as the Franche-Comte, to avoid confusion with the duchy of Burgundy. Choess 18:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please Arrigo,
In which way "exception #2 and parallel" of Naming conventions (names and titles) is to be interpreted, and how strict or not it is to be applied is currently under discussion on the talk page of that guideline, as you are perfectly aware of, while you are taking part in that discussion.

Your attempt to change ALL the dukes of Burgundy pages according to your interpretation of that exception, quickly before the discussion is closed, and in thus way attempt to create havoc, by leaving double redirects etc unattended, and most of all because in this way you cripple a serene discussion of that exception, can only be interpreted as a deliberate infringement of WP:POINT. See discussion with Deb and many others higher on this page too. --Francis Schonken 16:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Afaik I have not moved ALL the dukes of Burgundy. Contrary, I left most of them where they are.

2. I fllowed NC, the main rules, not exceptions. Application of exceptions require much more than simply following basic rules - such does not require votings.

3. Actually, I moved two dukes (who were in very inconsistent places compared to all the others).

4. After having moved Charles, I observed that actually a couple of days ago YOU had moved him using your interpretation of an exception. Do you not have any feeling of hypocrisy? Arrigo 17:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism vs. Content Disputes
Please see Vandalism. Vandalism is a bad-faith contribution, not POV-pushing or content disputes. Please stop listing content disputes at pages designated for dealing with vandalism.--Scimitar parley 16:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I only answered there (aiv) to fabricated accusations made by certain Francis Schonken, as some people might even initially have some reliance on such Francis-products. Arrigo 17:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I was actually responding to this diff, which seems to show your nomination of User:Francis Schonken as a vandal, which seems to be where he got the idea to list you at AIV. Both places are for dealing with vandalsim only.  I would suggest that you two both would benefit from reviewing Resolving disputes, which outlines correct procedure for dealing with disputes.--Scimitar parley 17:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Philip III
Ok, I deleted that redirect and moved the article to Philip III, Duke of Burgundy. I don't know what you guys are doing but it's really making a mess of redirects all over the place. Adam Bishop 17:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, and I deleted Demetrius too...but I have no idea what's going on there now. We have two articles about him now? And one is in the wrong spot? I give up...even Philip the Good makes more sense than this one. Adam Bishop 18:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

William I
Hi, thanks for your notice on William of Orange, but I've decided not to care too much about page titles. It's just not worth it... I'll just wait and accept whatever conclusion is reached. Eugene van der Pijll 21:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thomas and Demetrius
To tell you truth I have not expected so soon reaction on article Thomas Palaeologus. Demetrius has been made only like working version without any links because I will look for more information in next few days. It has never been my intention that somebody will read this before it's finished. Simple in that article I have put text from Thomas and Demetrius which can be in future article Demetrius because I have given to Adam Bishop propositon of deleting this article from Wikipedia. Yes greatest part of both articles will be from first. Article Thomas Palaeologus is finished for me, maybe I will add in future link to Andronicus but nothing else. For me is suprise that so much people is interested in what has happened after Constantinople conquest !! In begining has been little problem for this article to be in Wikipedia.rjecina

Re. your comments at Talk:Frederick II of Prussia
You posted:"Quite distasteful. Some may even name such as 'ramble and rant'. Oh, if the same energy were used to writing articles. There begins to be Francis' long writings in quite many places, some may wonder why 'everywhere'. May I ask what is the ratio of words Francis has written to articles compared to words he used to talkpages..."Signed by your "alter ego" User:217.140.193.123

Just clarifying I do prefer to write articles (presently 2121 edits), which I do more than writing on talk pages and other non-article pages combined (presently 1093 edits)ref. The "ratio of words" I don't know. The last "substantial" contribution to a wikipedia article I did was to Res publica some days ago. In comparison, adding the four book references to Elisabeth of Bohemia also took some time, although the net text addition was maybe not so "substantial". Sometimes I work on guidelines & policies for a period of time. Don't know how long it will take this time. --Francis Schonken 11:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Francis, then it is imo a bit contradictory with that purpose stated above by you that your recent constribution history shows dozens of edits to policyspace, dozens of edits to complaint pages, dozens of edits to user talkpages, dozens of edits to ongoing disputes in article talkpages, several moves, dozens of redirects, and very few article edits compared to all that else. Of course you set your priorities by yourself. 217.140.193.123 13:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * What part of "Sometimes I work on guidelines & policies for a period of time." was not clear to you? --Francis Schonken 16:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Moods come and go.

Moving comments
If I wanted to vote on the Philip the Good->Philip III, Duke of Burgundy proposal as it stands, I would have done so; or you could have asked me. (I am inclined to abstain for the moment.) It is exceedingly impolite to cast a vote on my behalf by moving a comment made elsewhere, particularly when you're up in arms because Francis moved comments of yours from one talk page to another. Choess 18:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Demetrius
If you ask me Demetrius will now be OK. Only I need to write death year. It will be done in monday. Start editing if you want.

Devorguilla Balliol
See my reply at User talk:217.140.193.123. - Mark 02:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Manuel II sons
Now you have article for all sons of Manuel II ( new :Andronicus and Theodore ). Go on article of Manuel II for links. Problem with Thoma: Pope Paul II arranged for 1472 a marriage between the Catholic daughter of Thomas, Zoe Palaiologina. It can be in 1472 because Paul II is then death. Matrimony is arranged in meetings between 1467-71. First article about Theodore I has been mistake. Not looking I have created article Theodor II, not Theodore II and now I can't delete all article. New has been created under right name but old....

Derrick of Oldenburg
"Derrick of Oldenburg" gets zero Google hits. "Dietrich of Oldenburg" gets 103. I doubt if anybody knows that Dietrich is the same as Derrick, and I doubt anybody has ever called him that. Zoe 08:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's the English name. 103 hits is anyway a low number, such is usually caused by hits of genealogy sites which use too much non-English versions. There somewhere is some criterion that if google hits not thousands, google is not to be relied on. Arrigo 08:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

So give me one place where he's called Derrick. And just because it's an English name doesn't mean it's the name English speakers of. The King of Spain is Juan Carlos, not John Charles. Zoe 08:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Even if it were used, "Derek" is the normal English spelling. "Derrick" is a very recent invention. Deb 18:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Jim Duffy (author)
I have added a complete list of books written by Jim Duffy to the article. So there!

The Lady Elizabeth
You have never said what PoV Elizabeth of Bohemia supports. Please explain. If I understand your position, I may agree with it. Septentrionalis 16:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello, Arrigo. Since you and Francis Schonken seem to be in a dispute, would you be willing for me to mediate between you two? I hope that if both of you agree, we can begin some productive discussion, and that some issues will be cleared up. If you are willing to give mediation a try, please let me know. Just a note: In the interest of full disclosure, I am not an official mediator yet, but I'd be willing to help you two out if both of you agree. Thanks a lot for your understanding. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I beleive the point of mediation is to help two dedicated Wikipedians resolve their dispute. While there are multiple accusations of wrong-doing on both sides, I feel that if both of you were willing to resolve your differences with each other, that mediation would be extremely productive. Would you be willing to begin mediation and give it a try? My opinion is that there's no harm in trying. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a vast potential of harm, as evidently User:Francis Schonken uses everything for building his less-than-sane accusations. I have no doubt that anything I utter during a mediation will find its route to Francis Schonken's so-called evidence, which should rather be called as collection of bias and fabrication. Arrigo 00:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * How about if a mediation page is created, and that nothing written on those pages can go anywhere else? If both of you agree on that condition, I feel that mediation would become more productive. In addition, email communication could also be used, though I would prefer it as a last resort. Thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation on Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for a violation of 3RR on Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom. If you have any questions, please post them on this talk page (I have put this page on my watchlist, and will address any questions or concerns here.)  Ral  315  03:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I regard this block inappropriate. My edits were not identical. The alleged fourth revert was different in content than any of the others. The alleged third revert was different in content than the others. In maximum, there are two clear reverts by me. Since cut-and-paste move is forbidden by WP policy, my alleged reverts anyway were to help keeping cut-and-paste situation from taking place, i.e they were defending against policy-breaking vandalism. Moreover, having seen how the complanant, User:Francis Schonken has not been blocked, although the same admin handled that matter too, I regard my this block highly partial. Arrigo 03:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Partiality had nothing to do with it. In fact, to my knowledge, I have had no dealing with Francis Schonken or you in the past.  I viewed your edits as identical, and did not view his as being so.  I also left Francis Schonken's case open for the review of another admin.  But I only counted three reverts by him.  Note, , and , which all reverted back to your own versions.  Also, note , where the only difference was that you kept a minor change made by User:Deb.  This makes at least 4 reverts by you.   Ral  315  03:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The page has changed somewhat between those edits. For example, between 8 and 9 there is some changes:. 3RR is in question if the removal is always identical or if the original revision is the same in all reverts. Neither of those conditions are fulfilled here. (You chose erroneously e.g the revisions to be diffed in 8 - it is somewhat later, and the page had changed in between.) In fact, you yourself wrote "they are not completely the same". I think the block you administered, has come from some inexperience. Helping to avoid cut-and-paste move is working against vandalism, and my edits were mostly to return the content to the article after someone had destroyed them by making it a redirect. Besides, it is irrelevant whether you know or not Schonken: partiality comes already from uneven handling. Arrigo 03:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I took diffs between any two edits you made. 6, 7, and 8 ALL are the same as the previous revert you made.  8 was not erroneous- the two pages are exactly the same because you reverted to it.  And, yes, there were edits between 8 and 9.  But I noted that you reverted those edits.  And that's why you were blocked.  Look at 6, 7, and 8- they're the same.  Why?  Because you reverted them in full.  And #9 was the same, except for a minor edit by Deb.  And that's why you were blocked.

 * I also take offense to your anger at my perceived "lack of experience". I've been on Wikipedia since November 2004, and I think I have a reasonable grasp of 3RR.  If you're not breaking 3RR, you're gaming the system, and if you'd rather, we can call the block for gaming the system instead.

 * As far as uneven handling, the two situations were different, and I treated them as such. I believe you broke 3RR, and he didn't.  So, I didn't block him, but I did block you.  Should another admin agree, they are free to block Francis Schonken.  But I'm not going to.   Ral  315  04:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not angry. Rather, I pity. You try to make excuses of "gaming the system" when I only made edits to build these articles better and to avoid cut-and-paste situation. Funny that you do not see how Schonken more or less "gamed the system" in both of these articles, wanting to create cut-and-paste which can be regarded as vandalism. That you do not see it is yet one reason to feel pity. Well, between 8 and 9, I had added a relevant template. These were not identical reverts and did not violate 3RR. Arrigo 04:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You admit that you made 3 reverts. And #9 was exactly the same as the other 3, except for a template.  Read 3RR again- that was a partial revert, which still violates 3RR.   Ral  315  15:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves by making a merger
If an older page is merged to a newer page, without merging also edit history, it amounts to the same as a cut-and-paste move. There is no essential difference: in both cases, a content created in an older page is moved to a newer page, without its edit history.

A redirect does not help. Also in cut-and-paste moves a redirect can be made and still it is a cut-and-paste move.

The one true harm of cut-and-paste moves, and similarly of mergers without merging the edit history too, is the fact that the material becomes much more difficult to trace. For example, if there is a copyvio, it is more laborious (and sometimes too laborious) to find its origin (and it is a pity in cases where the originator actually has been entitled to give the text to WP). And contrariwise, to trace all the places where a spotted copyvio has spread. Arrigo 04:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

See also's to dab pages
Hi Arrigo, I wouldn't do "See also" sections at the bottom of pages with a link to a disambiguation page. A dab page should never contain more "info" than the actual page of the person, IMHO. If disambiguation is needed (which might be for some of the princesses Victoria you treated that way, but not necessarily all), maybe better to use a standard dab template at the top of the page, something like, or something more adapted to the situation. --Francis Schonken 21:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Hope you have not confused things, Francis. I am not aware of any page to where I had added anything like "see also" pointing to dab. Kindly inform me more about where you allege to have found such. I prefer dabs in the beginning of articles. Arrigo 22:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Oops, sorry, should've checked better, was a page made by Pat. I move the little remark to his talk page --Francis Schonken 22:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Dates of persons on dab pages
Hi Arrigo, please note that the relevant guideline (Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)) advises to add at least known dates about persons (of course, when available) to the names of these persons when they appear on dab pages: that's some of the primary stuff for recognising a person: in what age she/he lived. I speak, for instance, about Victoria of Coburg (which I'd rather name "Victoria of Saxe-Coburg", but that's another matter), where you listed persons about whom the dates are known, but without mentioning these. --Francis Schonken 21:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Good that you Francis found something to which you are able to contribute. Be my guest in adding relevant info there. :) Speaking about the name of that page, I would have chosen Victoria of Saxe-Coburg, but it was already reserved, alas. Don't know whether to bother with any move request for that. Arrigo 22:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Please follow the manual of style. Please don't ask fellow-wikipedians to do the clean-up after your untidy work. Following the MoS from the start doesn't cost extra work (and can cut down on slightly too long overlinked descriptions on dab pages)
 * Victoria of Saxe-Coburg is a redirect page. You can start content on that, instead of making a new page (if you don't know how I'd be happy to help). "Victoria of Coburg" is not a logical name for a page, so should better be the redirect (awkward names are in most cases not a problem for redirects) --Francis Schonken 22:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Francis, please do noth forget (though may be easy to you) that cut-and-paste moves are not allowed. Beasides, it is not question of untidy work. Arrigo 22:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Problem solved: no content moved, both pages redirecting to Princess Victoria, where the content of Victoria of Coburg was before that page ever started. --Francis Schonken 19:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:AIV
WP:AIV is for persistent vandalism that needs to be dealt with quickly, not for user or content disputes. I suggest you try WP:DR instead. Thank you. android 79  13:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup of double redirects
Hi Arrigo, please clean up the double redirects you left pointing towards Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, by moving Victoria von Saxe-Coburg (a redirect page). --Francis Schonken 19:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello, Arrigo! I was wondering if you were still interested in attempting mediation with Francis Schonken; I am optimistic that some productive talks can be accomplished. Francis has agreed to not use anything said in mediation be used for anything else, provided that both of you are making good-faith efforts, and are having productive discussions. Thanks for your understanding; please let me know if you are interested. Thanks once again. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Princess Alexandra of Denmark
Why did you move Prss. Alexandra's article to a completely incorrect title, when it was titled correctly before?????Mac Domhnaill 00:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Arrigo again, please stop moving royal articles around the whole time, you are causing distress. Please respond to the mediation request above . Gryffindor [[Image:Flag of Austria (state).svg|20px]] 12:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Double redirects (again)
Hi Arrigo, as a result of your page move of 29 augustus 2005 of Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia diff that article is littered with double redirects.

I see that yesterday your alter ego user:217.140.193.123 has been busy adding to the confusion by adding double redirects in the sense of Katherine, Crown Princess of Yugoslavia and Crown Princess Alexander of Yugoslavia, the last one speedy deleted by Fvw, but resuscitated by you within minutes after the delete.

Please clean up double redirects.

Please also have a look at Flcelloguy's mediation proposal. The way I see your activities now (among others creating redirect pages with the sole goal of creating double redirects and doing so with your IP instead of the user name in order to make it look less suspicious), you're heading straight for a permanent ban. --Francis Schonken 09:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Arrigo/217.140.193.123 please stop moving royal articles of any kind without discussing it first. Your activity from day 1 has been only focused on that, verbally abusing and stalking other users while you're going at it. Stop moving and please discuss it first. I have also offered you before to talk about these things, you have never responded to the offer. Gryffindor [[Image:Flag of Austria (state).svg|20px]] 12:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Argument?
Re: An excellent edit to Emperor of Japan created by 217.140.193.123 in 2005 --
 * I wonder if you might like to take a look at this?
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)
 * A different kind of dispute ...? --Ooperhoofd 15:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Princess Maria of Romania

The article Princess Maria of Romania has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Not notable, never really a princess as born after Romania became a republic, article content is mostly trivia.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. PatGallacher (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Princess Maria of Romania for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Princess Maria of Romania is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Princess Maria of Romania until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PatGallacher (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Arrigo


text:
Secret Wars II

Secret Wars II is a nine-issue comic book limited series and crossover published from 1985 to 1986 by Marvel Comics. The series was written by Marvel's then editor-in-chief Jim Shooter and primarily pencilled by Al Milgrom.

The series was a sequel to original series Secret Wars, published in 1984 and 1985. The series tied-in with issues of other Marvel titles, with each "tie-in" featuring a "Secret Wars II" logo in the top right hand corner to indicate that it was a part of the overall story. This was the first time Marvel published a story where the reader would have to purchase multiple titles in order to read the entire story.

Plot
The entity that instigated the first Secret War, the Beyonder, visits Earth in search of enlightenment and inevitably comes into conflict with Earth's superhumans and the cosmic entities that exist in the Marvel Universe. At first, the Beyonder tries to figure out the meaning of the simple everyday tasks humans do, such as: eating, sleeping, using the bathroom, etc, then the Beyonder works for a mobster and becomes very powerful and obsessed with gadgets. The Earth's heroes are very suspicious of him and this causes the Beyonder to retreat to a lone island. Mephisto recruits an army of supervillains with boosted strength, but The Thing fights them off after he is given augmented strength as well. The Beyonder falls in love with Dazzler, and tries to start a relationship with Boom Boom, but both turn him down. It is also explained how Doctor Doom, who was killed in the "normal" timeline, was able to appear in the first Secret Wars. The Beyonder recreates Doom's body from its disintegrated particles and sends him back in time to the start of the Secret Wars, causing Doom to live them in reverse order.

The Beyonder is eventually dealt with, although the heroes also have to prevent the destruction of the planet as a consequence of his actions. Beyonder attempts to become a human while still retaining all his powers. The demon Mephisto attempts to destroy him while in this form since he is now "merely human."

A sequel in the form of a single issue revealed that the Beyonder was an evolved Cosmic Cube and evolved into a being called Kosmos.

Tie-in issues
Captain America #308; Iron Man #197; New Mutants #30; Uncanny X-Men #196 The Amazing Spider-Man #268; Fantastic Four #282; Web of Spider-Man #6 Avengers #260; Daredevil #223; The Incredible Hulk #312 Alpha Flight #28; Avengers #261; Dazzler #40; Rom #72 Doctor Strange #74; Fantastic Four #285; The Thing #30 Cloak and Dagger #4; The Micronauts: The New Voyages #16; Power Pack #18; Power Man and Iron Fist #121; Thor #363 Amazing Spider-Man #273; New Defenders #152; New Mutants #36; Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man #111; Uncanny X-Men #202 Amazing Spider-Man #274; Avengers #265; Fantastic Four #288; New Mutants #37; Uncanny X-Men #203 Avengers #266 Quasar #8 Deadpool Team Up #1
 * July 1985:
 * Aug. 1985:
 * Sept. 1985:
 * Oct. 1985:
 * Nov. 1985:
 * Dec. 1985:
 * Jan. 1986:
 * Feb. 1986:
 * March 1986:
 * March 1990:
 * Dec. 1998:

Reception
John Gregory Betancourt reviewed Secret Wars II for the July 1986 issue of Amazing Stories and said that "I felt this series was something special [...] I think you might be pleasantly surprised if you haven't read any comics lately."

Secret Wars II was 1985's bestselling comic book; however, it was "one of the most despised comics of the year" in the eyes of the fan press, receiving poor reviews and making numerous "worst comics of the year" lists.

Collected editions

 * Secret Wars II (paperback), ISBN 9780785158301

title: Secret Wars II


text: User:Blaaarg

title: User:Blaaarg


text:
Talk:Iftikhar Ali Khan

Hi Natalina,

ALL the info present on this page is also present in the page that you are now redirected to; I have formatted the page better and added personal details with reference links, so that the nawab's bio is not restricted to this cricketing career alone. Please see the point in this and do not revert.

Importantly, the NAME of the page should include the SURNAME "Pataudi" so as not to confuse with other people who have the name "Iftekhar Ali Khan". Believe me, that is not such an uncommon set of first names in the muslim community.

Thanx Anon

Btw, it should be Ift*i*khar everywhere Tintin 10:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tintin,

I have fixed that to make it consistently "Iftikhar" everywhere in the article - - thanx for the tip - Anon

title: Talk:Iftikhar Ali Khan