User talk:Royalty2012
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
How does one change the page title for a spelling error?
The entry for Bayezid Osman should be Bayazid Osman.
Source is a scan of that persons US passport.
Royalty2012 (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- See Help:Moving a page on how to change a page title. That said, the third-party sources consistently spell him "Bayezid", so that's what we should use. Huon (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
| This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
The Prince in question is known to all and sundry as Osman Bayazid, irrespective of what third-party sources use, and not all use the Bayezid spelling. He has provided a scan of his American passport which clearly shows Bayazid as the correct spelling of his surname. It is unacceptable to force a 90 year old man to put up with an incorrect spelling, just because readily available English sources have something else. Burke's Guide to the Royal Family is notorious for its errors and is not to be trusted. Please make an old man happy in his declining years by correctly recording his surname. I am unable to do this as I do not have the required number of edits. My apologies for not being able to do it myself. Royalty2012 (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- What you're asking cannot be done unless you or anyone else provides a reliable source stating so, as per WP:VERIFY. You may also want to take a look at WP:VNT.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Jetstreamer[edit]
So you are saying a person's passport is not a reliable source? Is that correct?
- WP:IRS lists which sources can be considered reliable.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
How to resolve an edit war[edit]
Your recent editing history at House of Dlamini shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Derek Andrews (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Facts are not copyrightable[edit]
There's much more on this at Talk:House of Dlamini which I suggest you go and read but the essential point you need to be aware of is that, under US law (which Wikipedia operates under) facts are not copyrightable - see Wikipedia:PD#Non-creative_works and Wikipedia:Copyright in lists for more on this. Therefore continuing to revert on that grounds will be seen as disruptive and could lead to a block. There's more on the article talk page (including discussion about the fact that some of what was on the original article was copyrightable) but I wanted to make sure you were aware of the essential point and point you at the longer discussion. If you have any questions feel free to ask me. Dpmuk (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)