User talk:Firebrace

Hey, User:Firebrace, knock it off. You don't own the Crown Jewels page, and I don't need to your smartass edit summaries and patronizing BS at my Talk page. I've been at Wikipedia for well over a decade and have over 40,000 constructive edits to date. Don't be dumping this "Maybe this beginnner's lesson" will help you crap there. And lose the taunting on the edit summaries. "Factually incorrect. Don't double down, you'll just make it worse.". Hey, you've made nearly 1,000 edits to the Crown Jewels page alone. How about being constructive here and altering the wording till we both can agree on it. I'm just using the same language I learned reading Wikipedia articles on Crown Jewel related pages, which indeed state that Cromwell sold off the lot for a mere 1,500 pounds.

You don't have a monopoly on British history. If you know it better than me, a non-native, fine, then help me out, help us all out, and be helpful, not a jobsworth.

Now I'm going to go back and repeat my valid edits. If you'd like to edit war over it, then we'll just have to get an administrator in here to see that you get in line with reasonable behavior here, which you are not remotely observing. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiuser100: The rules apply as much to tenured Wikipedians as to beginners, and you should follow them like everyone else. By the way you do come across as a novice. You also don't get to decide how many of your own edits were "constructive". English Monarchs is self-published fansite, which are not allowed on Wikipedia per WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:SPS; if you still don't know this having been here for more than a DECADE then I respectfully suggest you get a new hobby.

The funny thing is I did try to help you out by explaining that Oliver Cromwell didn't become Lord Protector until 1653 (link), but you didn't listen. Then you tell me your edits are 100% valid and constructive, and you've been here 11 years so you must be absolutely perfect (and probably think you have an IQ of 140 like the other tenured Wikipedians). Are you Donald Trump? He also thinks he has nothing to learn. Firebrace (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You should do stand-up, User:Firebrace. You know you've done nothing but be as obstreperous and jobsworthy as you can be throughout this. The English Monarachs web page is not a suitable reference for Wikipedia...it's not accurate, comprehensive, clear, and the very first thing that comes up via a Google search, set off on its own as a masthead within a box with Wikipedia's picture of the Imperial State Crown, the copy "Oliver Cromwell sold the jewel along with the rest of the British Crown Jewels, during the Interregnum...", and the link: The Crown Jewels - English Monarchs www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/crown_jewels.htm, stating what is unambigously the consensus account of the matter as stated for readers of a proletarian "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", as attested by any manner of similar or near verbatim wordings of the same basic tale from other "published" sources. Fine, split hairs, throw your arms around the MOS till you crush it. That's the spirit here, alright. Right, Jimmy Wales?

There is nothing about I have been seeking to convey throughout which is not, did not start out, in accord with commonly accepted history...at least that could not have been easily sorted out if needed by a cooperative and better informed editor with a few unobserved keystrokes. Not a summary revert, an edit war, baiting edit summaries, and demeaning ad hominum attacks. That tree would have fallen in the forest, perhaps with a thoughtful ping at my Talk page, if had even been necessary, saying "There were some nuances about British History that weren't quite right. I've tweaked them a bit so that everything squares. Perhaps this page will give you a better understanding of how the events played out. Yours...." That editor would have slept soundly at night knowing they'd both helped improve the encyclopedia and aid a good faith editor. The other one slept just as soundly knowing they had not.

How is this...

• "The original Crown Jewels were destroyed by Oliver Cromwell following the execution of Charles I in 1649, as they were then considered to be redundant. In an appalling act of historical vandalism, Cromwell had the entire collection sold or melted down and made into coin."^[1]

...an inaccurate or mischaracterization of history as it is told in any number of references already quietly at rest at Wikipedia or elsewhere:

• "With the exception of the Coronation Chair and several other items, Cromwell had the principal symbols of the king's power – the Crown Jewels – disassembled and sold, and the gold was melted down and made into coins."^[2]
• "Britain’s original royal regalia had been melted down and sold off in 1649 during Cromwell’s rule, "^[3]
• "After the execution of Charles I in 1649 many of the Crown Jewels were sold or destroyed. Oliver Cromwell ordered that the orb and sceptres should be broken as they stood for the ‘detestable rule of kings’. All the gemstones were removed and sold and the precious metal was used to make coins."^[4]
• "The Crown Jewels suffered their most disastrous fate following the execution of Charles I in the seventeenth century. In 1649 Cromwell ordered that the Royal regalia 'be totally broken' as being symbolic of the 'detestable rule of kings'. The regalia's precious stones were sold separately and the precious metal sent to the Mint to be coined....^[5]

Yeah, you know. You get it. But you'd prefer to wage a sniping war of attrition and other petty games hoping to wear other users down, get them to abjectly submit to threats and taunts, or flee in tears at your insults. Good Grief. Take a long look in the mirror. Over 900 edits at a page does not make it your personal page and you its curator. When you're done looking at that mirror try to be helpful, not an impediment to others seeking to be, flaws and all. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I get it: You've been here longer, therefore you're able to do as you please. Anyway, those sources are garbage; see Talk:Crown_Jewels_of_the_United_Kingdom#Intereggnum. Firebrace (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

So the British National Archives and the Royal Family have it all wrong - their sources are "garbage". Oh me, Oh my. Perhaps you could spend some of your free time straightening them out. Yours, 13:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Firebrace, you are not helping yourself here. Whatever the technical legalities of England after the army's coup d'etat, Cromwell controlled the government, and these sources are merely using a convenient shorthand, as we still do with "Trump, Bush, Thatcher etc did such and such", when technically the measure was ordered by a minister/government agency/passed by a legislature" enacting the wish of the head of government. Such statements, and sources making them, are not reasonably described as "garbage". Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, he's getting all this from biased / ropey online sources which contain other factual mistakes or white lies (see Talk:Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom#Sources). No serious book on the subject attributes the destruction of the Crown Jewels to Oliver Cromwell. Firebrace (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

EEng 18:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: "Ablaze" more than twice as popular as "aflame" in 2000. Thanks for proving my point. Firebrace (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. If there's a choice of synonyms or shades of meaning we should always simply use the most common word. Example: suppose we have a situation in which we might describe someone as happy, cheerful, joyful, jovial, elated, or things like that. Obviously we should just pick happy, because happy is by far the most common of those . This way, eventually all those other unnecessary words will die out and everyone can just be happy all the time. Life will be much simpler, dictionaries will be smaller – the benefits are legion. EEng 20:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Reviving obsolete words isn't what Wikipedia is for... Firebrace (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You probably should look up obsolete. EEng 01:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Get a life. Firebrace (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Ref was pointing to the same settlement. Ref.--Vin09 (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello User:Vin09, there are two Kollurs in Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh, around 200km apart The old mining settlement is uninhabited and lies under water for most of the year, since the area was flooded by the Pulichinthala Project. Firebrace (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I was searching for this info. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers!--Vin09 (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Addition by a user This was added by some user on 12 November 2018, so by seeing that I got a doubt.--Vin09 (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm Superchilum, admin on Italian Wikipedia.

I'm collaborating with two social researchers, Oscar Ricci from the University of Milano-Bicocca and Sergio Splendore from Università Statale of Milan. We are interested in exploring what Wikipedians think about the approach of Wikipedia to breaking news.

So, we have prepared a survey with a bunch of open questions. We will be very grateful if you would accept to answer those questions for us and let us know your point of view. Of course it will be strictly anonymous and the answers will be used only for research purposes. Moreover, you don't have to write in English, but you can use your native language.

If you want to help us (thank you!) I will send you the questions, and we would appreciate very much receiving the answers by next December 2nd; otherwise, let me know so I can ask more people.

Thank you very much for your attention, and have a nice day.

--Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 21:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to share my thinking behind the "too long/overly-detailed" template above the plot summary of HyperNormalisation. I appreciate the film is nearly three hours long and that it deals with a wide range of complex issues. Wikipedia's manual of style nevertheless recommends that film plot descriptions run between 400 and 700 words. At my count, this plot description is over 1,500 words. It is also not in summary style: as an example, the lyrics Barbara Mandrell's "Standing Room Only", shorn of context, do not help the reader understand the film's events and arguments. I added the template so any editor who trims the plot summary down to appropriate length is not accused of vandalising the page. I have reinstated the template. If you disagree, please start a discussion on the article's talk page.CPClegg (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Family (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Firebrace: The royal family really was on a torrent site, I can confirm that. Only, I'm a bit doubtful how that should be referenced. Surely we can't link directly to that? Ideas welcome. Spiny Norman (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I've written a summary of the first episode of on the talk page, I think I'll go mad if I try and condense it! I'm not sure how to create a future content section. Thanks for your great work on the page. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Portland Tiara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cartier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Coronation of the British monarch for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Coronation robes of the British monarch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Firebrace, regarding your recent edits to the Coronation Crown of George IV article, I think perhaps you didn't read the accompanying reference on the Royal Collection web page: 'It was cast from George IV's Imperial State Crown or Diamond Crown' [as opposed to the Diamond Diadem]. I did wonder if they had made a mistake but it seems to be a reference they use across several different articles on their items.

I believe it survived his coronation by two years. George IV intended to keep it on as his permanent state crown but Parliament would not vote him the money.

But also, the line between a coronation crown and a state crown is quite blurry. For example, Queen Victoria's Imperial State Crown was actually her coronation crown, and I'm not even sure that the St Edward's Crown — the official coronation crown as Wikipedia would have it — was even present on the alter. Several monarchs were crowned with their state crown. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)