User talk:98.228.137.44

Hello! I noticed your contributions to Todd Rokita and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Marquardtika (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sheep8144402. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Archduke Otto of Austria have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Sheep (talk • he/him) 20:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding a more specific category 98.228.137.44 (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Killian K. Van Rensselaer, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was consolidating the districts together per the pages for other redistricted representatives. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for correcting me earlier. I must ask though, how do you navigate through the genealogics.org website? Whenever you link one in your edit summary, the link never seems to work properly. I am currently at the home page, where do I go from here? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to search for the personal names of the individuals in the search page, though you might need separate tabs to find both. The person pages have an ID number on them and there's a tab to calculate relationship, so you'll need to enter the ID number of the other person and that will calculate the relationship. You can also set how many generations to check, since you might need to go back a while

For what's it's worth, based on what the site showed me, here are the shortest lines of descent from their most recent common ancestor.

Charles Louis, Hereditary Prince of Baden -> Princess Wilhelmine of Baden -> Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine -> Prince Louis of Battenberg -> Princess Alice of Battenberg -> Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh -> Charles III

Charles Louis, Hereditary Prince of Baden -> Charles, Grand Duke of Baden -> Princess Marie Amelie of Baden -> Lady Mary Victoria Douglas-Hamilton -> Louis II, Prince of Monaco -> Princess Charlotte, Duchess of Valentinois -> Rainier III, Prince of Monaco -> Albert II, Prince of Monaco

Hope this helps. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, this website is amazing! Thank you! Also, I would suggest that you make a Wikipedia account. You seem knowledgeable on the rules and MOS, and I have seen you contributing to quite a few pages I am familiar with (you contributed to Constantine II of Greece-related articles if I am correct). I think you would be a great editor! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, but I'm good at the moment. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DDMS123. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DDMS123 (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting involved with the page if you want to help out you could help expend highest grossing films based on television series that not part of the same continuity chart and the year chart do not worry about opening weekends I will focus on that Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion about sources over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, if you want to chime in. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of honorary British knights and dames, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, List of highest-grossing films based on television series is now at WP:AfD, see WP:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films based on television series. I figured I should let you know since you participated in the discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing films based on television series#RFC for Inclusion criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Rose McConnell Long, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm NoobThreePointOh. I noticed that you recently removed content from Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark (born 1983) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 13:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Prince Oscar, Duke of Skåne. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted them because coat of arms don't go in the infobox. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kerstin Bernadotte. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reasoning in my edit reason. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Family tree of Greek monarchs. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was linking directly to the article, not a redirect 98.228.137.44 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Victor Adolf, Prince of Bentheim and Steinfurt, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making test edits, I was attempting to fix the malformed refs that lead to the Literature template appearing on the article. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I apologise. I thought your edit had broken the template. I think I have managed to fix it now. Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to still be some issues with the citations not displaying properly, so I don't know what the issue is. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we might need to redo those citations. I sometimes find that's easier. Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! If you intend to continue to remove government-issued, legal titles, as you did here you will be asked to provide a link to substantiate your interpretation of the term "substanrtive titles". In Sweden, ducal titles are given to relatives by the monarch with no goverment sanction. I thought perhaps that might interest you. Please be more careful! Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox royalty states that the title field should include "Principal substantive title(s) in use", which is defined by the site's article (Substantive title) as "The title is officially borne by only one person at a time" and "It is to be distinguished from a title shared among cadets, borne as a courtesy title by a peer's relatives, or acquired through marriage". That would preclude the "Prince of Sweden" and "Count of Wisborg" title from being included in the infobox. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add sources to that article to substantiate your opinions and reverts. Thank you for the partial restoration. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to throw other people under the bus, but for what it's worth, I was following the lead of people like User:DrKay, who did similar things citing the template and policy as seen here. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would also be my interpretation that Prince of Sweden and Count of Wisborg are cadet titles and that Prince Bernadotte and Duke of Dalarna are substantive. DrKay (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I suggest you 98.228.137.44 and/or DrKay and/or anyone else interested add some sources to our article Substantive title before most of it is removed (see talk there!). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to William Albert, 1st Prince of Montenuovo, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. SWDG 02:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it because his mother was Duchess regnant of Parma. The Category "Sons of Counts", per its own description is for "Sons of reigning counts". His father held the personal style of count, but he didn't rule over a county. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, would you please post a link here to corroborate your POV that coats of arms do not go in info boxes. That would be helpful. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying it because none of the other royal pages that use Template:Infobox royalty do so and it looks unsightly. Specifically the issue was that when linking the individual's parents, spouse, and children, the person put the coat of arms for the said relatives next to their wikilinks, which isn't really pertinent information for the individual in question (for example on Carl XVI Gustaf's page, the individual coat of arms for each of his three children isn't example something that needs to be included there).98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the coat of arms of the subject person in principle does belong in h info box, and many other editors also believe that. Perhaps you have ralized that you were wrong to take them out all over? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I wasn't the only one who reverted that (as seen here User:TylerBurden also reverted them) and specifically the issue was that it was adding the coat of arms for other people, not the subject of the article. See below for an example of how the reverted edits portrayed the infobox.

Carl XVI Gustaf
Carl Gustaf in 2018
King of Sweden
Reign	15 September 1973 – present
Enthronement	19 September 1973
Predecessor	Gustaf VI Adolf
Heir apparent	Victoria
Prime ministers	See list Olof Palme Thorbjörn Fälldin Ola Ullsten Ingvar Carlsson Carl Bildt Göran Persson Fredrik Reinfeldt Stefan Löfven Magdalena Andersson Ulf Kristersson
Born	(1946-04-30) 30 April 1946 (age 78) Haga Palace, Solna, Sweden
Spouse	Queen Silvia
Issue Detail	Princess Victoria Prince Carl Philip Princess Madeleine
Names Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus
House	Bernadotte
Father	Prince Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Västerbotten
Mother	Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
Religion	Church of Sweden
Signature

As you can see, the edit put the coat of arms for his wife and daughter next to their links, which is inconsistent with how every other article using the royalty infobox does so. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I brought up here is a request for you to post a link here to corroborate your POV that coats of arms do not go in info boxes and the fact that you have been removing them indiscriminately all over. Not just in (justifiable) cases like that. Please respond to the main issue, if at all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox royalty is what I was basing my edits and it doesn't make any comment on coat of arms. What it says regarding the format of spouses and issue in the template is the following:

{{{spouse-type}}} {{{spouse}}}

{{{spouses-type}}} {{{spouses}}}

{{{issue-type}}}

[[{{{issue-link}}}|{{{issue-pipe}}}]] {{{issue}}} 98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jeffrey Viken. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Next time, just hide the template because confirmation will happen Snickers2686 (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, I thought it'd be quicker, but I see your point. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your edits on Emirati politicians, but I've reverted some of them because gender categories are not diffused like that. Graham87 (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bunnypranav (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them due to the reconfiguring of List of United States federal judges by longevity of service as detailed here. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a concern with you removing the links form the list article. I do not have much info about it and remain neutral. But I doubt that removing the see also section from so many articles is warranted. Bunnypranav (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who removed them from the list article. It was others who redefined the scope. I was just trying to make sure that the links to the article were consistent with what was on the list. If the see also section was blanked, that was because the article was the only one in the section. If there were other links in the section, I left them alone. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Just a clarification, the judges were (in the past atleast) in the list right. So, I believe that their long tenure justifies a link to the list in the see also. Again, I do not contest restructuring of the list, nor am I telling you did it. Bunnypranav (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ones who were previously on the list were ones who were on the list in the past, usually due to senior status, with their active service often being much shorter. The reasons it was changed was due to concerns about list length (there had been nearly 300 before the incursion criteria was changed from 40 years total to a fixed 100/50/25 entry cutoff) and, to a degree, the fact that senior judges often are practically retired and carry out little to no duties. If I recall correctly, most of the ones I removed only barely surpassed 40 years combining active and senior and their active service was only about 15 to 20 years, which isn't exceptionally long. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you mean to say that the articles did not require/warrant a need for the inclusion of the list in their see also sections? Bunnypranav (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct.98.228.137.44 (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My argument states, considering their seniority, shouldn't the list related to longevity of service be linked in the see also? The see also exists for the reason of linking to related articles. If you still feel there is a dispute, I request you to consent for a WP:3O. Bunnypranav (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to add them back, you can go ahead. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]