The new dukes replaced the Saxon horse emblem () and introduced their Ascanian family colours and emblem () added by a bendwise crancelin, symbolising the Saxon ducal crown, as new coat-of-arms of Saxony (). The later rulers of the House of Wettin adopted the Ascanian coat-of-arms.
The Ascanian Dynasty continued in Saxe-Lauenburg until 1689, but after the Lauenburg line had finally lost the Saxon Electorate to the Wittenberg line in 1356 and failed to obtain the succession in the Electorate after 1422, recognition of the Dukes of Saxe-Lauenburg as Dukes of Saxony waned. To follow the remnant House of Ascania in Saxe-Lauenburg, follow this table. For the following Electors of Saxony, see below the House of Wettin.
Table of rulers
(Note: Both lines follow the numbering established in this table until 1296. From 1296 on, each line follows independently the succession of Saxon dukes until 1296)
Until 1282, the brothers John I and Albert II ruled jointly. From John I's abdication in 1282, Albert shared rule with his minor nephews, sons of John I: John II, Albert III and Eric I. In 1296 they divided the land. Albert II retained Saxe-Wittenberg, and became the head of the elder Saxon Line, while his nephews ruled together in Saxe-Lauenburg, becoming the founders of the younger Saxon Line.
In 1296 Albert II and his nephews Albert III, Eric I, and John II ended their joint rule and partitioned Saxony into the Lauenburg line, where Albert III, Eric I, and John II continued to rule jointly until 1303, and the Wittenberg line, where Albert II continued as sole ruler until 1298. Since the Duke of Saxony was considered one of the prince-electors choosing a new Holy Roman Emperor, conflict arose between the lines of Lauenburg and Wittenberg over the issue of who should cast Saxony's vote. In 1314 both lines found themselves on different sides in a double election. Eventually, the Dukes of Saxe-Wittenberg succeeded in 1356 after the promulgation of the Golden Bull. To distinguish him from other rulers bearing the title Duke of Saxony, he was commonly called Elector of Saxony.
In January 1356 the Golden Bull confirmed Rudolf I as the legitimate Saxon Prince-Elector, thus the rulers of Saxe-Wittenberg are conceived as Electors of Saxony.
After her death, her brothers-in-law realigned the territory.
In 1315, after the death of Margaret of Brandenburg, the remaining brothers Eric and John redesigned the political division in Saxe-Lauenburg; Eric retained all of Margaret's part, but had to give part of his original domains to his brother. John ruled in Saxe-Bergedorf-Mölln, Eric in Saxe-Ratzeburg-Lauenburg.
Determined to enter the clergy, has to resign to succeed his brothers. He also left no descendants, which allowed the Saxe-Ratzeburg-Lauenburg line to reunite Saxe-Lauenburg.
Left no male descendants. he was succeeded by his brother, Albert.
In 1401 Saxe-Ratzeburg-Lauenburg inherited Saxe-Bergedorf-Mölln from the Ascanian Elder Lauenburg line there extinct upon Eric IV's death. The reunited duchy continued under the old name of Saxe-Lauenburg.
Ruled jointly. The numberings here lead to some confusion, as not all genealogists of the House of Ascania count John IV in the list of Dukes of Saxe-Lauenburg, numbering John V (John IV's nephew) as John IV.
Left no male descendants, which led the Ascanian Saxe-Wittenberg line to extinction.
The Ascanian Dynasty continued in Saxe-Lauenburg until 1689, but after the Lauenburg line had finally lost the Saxon Electorate to the Wittenberg line in 1356 and failed to obtain the succession in the Electorate after 1422, recognition of the Dukes of Saxe-Lauenburg as Dukes of Saxony waned. To follow the remnant House of Ascania in Saxe-Lauenburg, follow this table. For the following Electors of Saxony, see below the House of Wettin.
Sometimes numbered John IV. He is somestime confused with his uncle, John IV (Eric V and Bernard IV's brother) and a son of his own (John IV, Bishop of Hildesheim).
In 1571, highly indebted, he resigned in favour of his eldest son Magnus II, who had promised to redeem the pawned ducal demesnes with funds he gained as Swedish military commander and by his marriage to a Swedish princess.
Eldest son of Francis I. He didn't pay the debts he promised to pay, and led to war with his father and brothers. Two years later they deposed Magnus II and Francis I re-ascended. Magnus' violent and judicial attempts to regain the duchy failed. In 1588 he was imprisoned for the remainder of his life.
Brother of Magnus II. Vice-regent from 1578, administrator from 1581. Joint rule with his brother Maurice between 1581 and 1612. Father of Augustus and Julius Henry.
The Ascanian line of Saxe-Wittenberg became extinct with the death of Elector Albert III in 1422, whereafter Emperor Sigismund bestowed the country and electoral dignity upon Margrave Frederick IV of Meissen, who had been a loyal supporter in the Hussite Wars. Late Albert's Ascanian relative Duke Eric V of Saxe-Lauenburg protested in vain. Frederick, now one of the seven Prince-electors, was a member of the House of Wettin, which since 1089 had ruled over the adjacent Margraviate of Meissen up the Elbe river, established under Emperor Otto I in 965, and since 1242 also over the Landgraviate of Thuringia. Thus, in 1423, Saxe-Wittenberg, the Margraviate of Meissen and Thuringia were united under one ruler, and the unified territory .
gradually received the name of (Upper) Saxony (or simply Saxony).
Partitions of Saxony under Wettin rule
Electorate of Saxony (1422-1464)
Albertine territories
Ernestine territories
Albertine Duchy of Saxony (1464-1547)
ErnestineElectorate of Saxony (1464-1547)
Duchy of Saxe-Coburg (1542-1552)
AlbertineElectorate of Saxony (1547-1806)
Ernestine Duchy of Saxony (1547-1554)
Saxe-Coburg-Eisenach (1554-1566)
Saxe-Gotha (1554-1565)
Saxe-Weimar (1554-1566)
Ernestine Duchy of Saxony (1566-1572)
Saxe-Coburg-Eisenach (1572-1596)
Saxe-Weimar (1572-1741)
Saxe-Coburg (1596-1633)
Saxe-Eisenach (1596-1633)
Saxe-Altenburg (1603-1672)
Saxe-Coburg-Eisenach (1633-1638)
Saxe-Eisenach (1640-1644)
'
Saxe-Gotha (1640-1672)
Saxe-Zeitz (1656-1718)
Saxe-Merseburg (1656-1738)
Saxe-Weissenfels (1656-1746)
Saxe-Eisenach (1662-1741)
Saxe-Marksuhl (1662-1671)
Saxe-Jena (1662-1690)
Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg (1672-1826)
Saxe-Merseburg-Lauchstädt (1684-1690)
Saxe-Weissenfels-Querfurt (1680-1739)
Saxe-Weissenfels-Barby (1680-1739)
Saxe-Hildburghausen (1675-1826)
Saxe-Eisenberg (1675-1707)
Saxe-Meiningen (1675-1918)
Saxe-Saalfeld (1675-1699)
Saxe-Coburg (1675-1699)
Saxe-Römhild (1675-1710)
Saxe-Zeitz-Pegau-Neustadt (1699-1713)
Saxe-Merseburg-Zörbig (1691-1715)
Saxe-Merseburg-Spremberg (1694-1731)
Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld (1699-1826)
Saxe-Weissenfels-Dahme (1711-1715)
Saxe-Weissenfels (-1746)
Duchy of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (1741-1815)
Kingdom of Saxony
Grand-Duchy of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (1815-1918)
Saxe-Altenburg (1826-1918)
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (1826-1918)
Table of rulers
(Note: Here the numbering of the princes is the same for all principalities, as all were titled Dukes of Saxony, despite of the different parts of land and its particular numbering of the rulers. The princes are numbered following Ascanian Saxe-Wittenberg line (their predecessors) and by the year of their succession.)
After the Wittenberg line of the Ascanians became extinct, the Electorate was given to Frederick, Margrave of Meissen and Landgrave of Thuringia, of the House of Wettin.
Son of Frederick I. Ruled jointly in Saxony with his brothers, but was the sole holder of the Electorate. Father of Ernest and Albert, founders of the Ernestine and Albertine Saxon lines.
Son of Frederick II. He was the founder and progenitor of the Albertine line.
In the Treaty of Leipzig (1485) Ernest and Albert divided the Wettine territories among each other. Ernest retained the Electorate and most of Thuringia, while Albert received Meissen and parts in northern Thuringia.
Co-regent of his brother of Frederick III (26 August 1486 - 5 May 1525), with his own residence at Weimar since 1513. Established Lutheranism in his territories in 1527.
Lost his Electoral dignity and territory to his cousin Maurice after being defeated the Emperor in the Schmalkaldic War. He was left with some territories as the Duchy of Saxony. After his death the Duchy of Saxony was divided between his three sons.
Ruled together with his brother John Frederick until 1542, after that Duke of Saxe-Coburg. After his death, his territory reverted back to his brother.
Ernestine Duchies
Following their displacement by the Albertines, the Ernestine branch of the Wettins continued to rule in southern Thuringia as "Dukes of Saxony", but their lands eventually split up into many different Ernestine duchies.
Reunited Saxony in 1566, after the abdication of his older brother. In 1572, the Division of Erfurt divided Saxony once again, between John William and his nephews, sons of John Frederick II.
Ruled together the domains of their father. In 1640 divided the land. William kept Saxe-Weimar. In 1644 William reunited his own domains with Albert's.
He implemented several buildings in Altenburg, but his government was considered conservative and resistant to reform; for this, he was forced to abdicate during the civil revolution of 1848. Left no male descendants. He was succeeded by his brother George.
(Note: Here the numbering of the princes is the same for all principalities, as all were titled Dukes of Saxony, despite of the different parts of land and its particular numbering of the rulers. The princes are numbered following Ascanian Saxe-Wittenberg line (their predecessors) and by the year of their succession.)
Second cousin of John Frederick, grandson of Albert. Though a Lutheran, allied with Emperor Charles V against the Schmalkaldic League. Gained the Electorate for the Albertine line in 1547 after Charles V's victory at the Battle of Mühlberg. Left no male descendants. He was succeeded by his brother Augustus.
Son of Christian. Received from his father the town of Lauchstädt, and ruled it in his father's lifetime. After his death his land returned to is father.
Brother of John George IV. Converted to Catholicism 1697 in order to compete for the crown of Poland. Took the Polish crown 1697, opposed by Stanisław Leszczyński, in 1704, forced to renounce the throne 1706, returned as monarch 1709 until his death.
Son of Christian. Received from his brother the town of Spremberg. In 1731 succeeded in Saxe-Merseburg, reuniting its original lands with those he unexpectedly inherited.
In 1731 succeeded in Saxe-Merseburg, reuniting its original lands with those he unexpectedly inherited. Left no descendants and Saxe-Merseburg merged in the Electorate of Saxony.
Son of Frederick Christian. His Electorate ceased with the fall of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, and he became King of Saxony.
In 1806 The Elector of Saxony became king of an independent Kingdom of Saxony. For the kings that followed the electors, see below the Kingdom of Saxony. For the multiple duchies that were contemporaries of this kingdom, see the later entries under Ernestine duchies.
The Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in 1806. The Elector of Saxony, allied to Napoleon I, became King of an independent Saxony. The numbering resets in this point.
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Khamar-2018-10-03T15:18:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-A_barnstar_for_you!-Sandbox-2018-10-03T15:18:00.000Z","replies":["c-Khamar-2018-10-03T15:18:00.000Z-A_barnstar_for_you!"],"text":"A barnstar for you!","linkableTitle":"A barnstar for you!"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Khamar-2018-10-03T15:18:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-A_barnstar_for_you!-Sandbox-2018-10-03T15:18:00.000Z","replies":["c-Khamar-2018-10-03T15:18:00.000Z-A_barnstar_for_you!"],"text":"A barnstar for you!","linkableTitle":"A barnstar for you!"}-->
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For correcting, improving, and communication with others. Nice work. Kyle(talk)15:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-10-03T15:18:00.000Z","author":"Khamar","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Khamar-2018-10-03T15:18:00.000Z-A_barnstar_for_you!","replies":[],"displayName":"Kyle"}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Srnec-20221202143500","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-\"King_of_Germany\"_listed_at_Redirects_for_discussion-Sandbox-20221202143500","replies":["c-Srnec-20221202143500-\"King_of_Germany\"_listed_at_Redirects_for_discussion"],"text":"\"King of Germany\" listed at Redirects for discussion","linkableTitle":"\"King of Germany\" listed at Redirects for discussion"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Srnec-20221202143500","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-\"King_of_Germany\"_listed_at_Redirects_for_discussion-Sandbox-20221202143500","replies":["c-Srnec-20221202143500-\"King_of_Germany\"_listed_at_Redirects_for_discussion"],"text":"\"King of Germany\" listed at Redirects for discussion","linkableTitle":"\"King of Germany\" listed at Redirects for discussion"}-->
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect King of Germany and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 2#King of Germany until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Srnec (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20221202143500","author":"Srnec","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Srnec-20221202143500-\"King_of_Germany\"_listed_at_Redirects_for_discussion","replies":[]}}-->
Hello, I'm Bedivere. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 2022 proposed Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bedivere (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20230913224500","author":"Bedivere","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bedivere-20230913224500-September_2023","replies":[]}}-->
According to the Ordnance Survey maps the street name is Parade, no definite article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20231115204900","author":"Murgatroyd49","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Murgatroyd49-20231115204900-Leamington_Spa","replies":["c-Str1977-20231115214600-Murgatroyd49-20231115204900"]}}-->
And still, everybody in Leamington calls it "The Parade". Even if the article were not part of the name, in a sentence the article (in this case definitely lower case) has to be included. The article does this in each and every other occurence. Reverting the article back out in this one occurence is obviously wrong. Str1977(talk)21:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20231115214600","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Str1977-20231115214600-Murgatroyd49-20231115204900","replies":["c-Murgatroyd49-20231116082500-Str1977-20231115214600","c-Str1977-20231116205400-Str1977-20231115214600"]}}-->
And your source for claiming that everybody in Leamington Spa calls it that is? the article should not be part of the link. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20231116082500","author":"Murgatroyd49","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Murgatroyd49-20231116082500-Str1977-20231115214600","replies":[]}}-->
I've lived there. Which "link" are you talking about? Str1977(talk)20:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20231116205400","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Str1977-20231116205400-Str1977-20231115214600","replies":["c-Murgatroyd49-20231116215700-Str1977-20231116205400"]}}-->
The fact that you lived there is not a reliable source. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20231116215700","author":"Murgatroyd49","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Murgatroyd49-20231116215700-Str1977-20231116205400","replies":["c-Str1977-20231116225000-Murgatroyd49-20231116215700"]}}-->
Neither is your insistence that in one instance (and only one) the street must be named without the article. Str1977(talk)22:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20231116225000","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Str1977-20231116225000-Murgatroyd49-20231116215700","replies":["c-Murgatroyd49-20231117081000-Str1977-20231116225000"]}}-->
I've supplied a source for that, Ordnance Survey. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20231117081000","author":"Murgatroyd49","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Murgatroyd49-20231117081000-Str1977-20231116225000","replies":["c-Str1977-20231117154800-Murgatroyd49-20231117081000"]}}-->
You've supplied no source for your claim that in a sentence the (supposedly official) street name "Parade" should not be prefaced with an article. And since you seem to care nothing for consistency, I cannot take your argument seriously. Str1977(talk)15:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20231117154800","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Str1977-20231117154800-Murgatroyd49-20231117081000","replies":["c-Murgatroyd49-20231117155700-Str1977-20231117154800"]}}-->
I am not insisting that it should apply in only one instance. That is your interpretation. I am stating the name is Parade without an article, as shown in the street signs and on the relevant Ordnance survey maps. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20231117155700","author":"Murgatroyd49","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Murgatroyd49-20231117155700-Str1977-20231117154800","replies":["c-Str1977-20231117170900-Murgatroyd49-20231117155700"]}}-->
Have you even read the article on that street and the references given there, including this one. Str1977(talk)17:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20231117170900","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Str1977-20231117170900-Murgatroyd49-20231117155700","replies":[]}}-->
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20231128002200","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-20231128002200-ArbCom_2023_Elections_voter_message","replies":[]}}-->
On Traditionis custodes: please do not add claims from primary sources as if those were proven. Veverve (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240114141300","author":"Veverve","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Veverve-20240114141300-On_Traditionis_custodes","replies":["c-Str1977-20240114142400-Veverve-20240114141300"]}}-->
I did not. You however reinserted the weasel word "claim". Str1977(talk)14:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240114142400","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Str1977-20240114142400-Veverve-20240114141300","replies":[]}}-->
Sorry for overdoing my revert when it came to the infobox. Your changes to his stint as minister without portfolio did have the correct info (although I had to make a change today to get the chancellors to display). But I am going to insist on President Friedrich Ebert - you're right that he wasn't minister president as the article originally said, but he was elected president by the National Assembly on 11 Feb 1919. Hope we're good now? GHStPaulMN (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240506114500","author":"GHStPaulMN","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-GHStPaulMN-20240506114500-Matthias_Erzberger","replies":["c-Str1977-20240506122300-GHStPaulMN-20240506114500"]}}-->
When was Erzberger appointed chairman of the armistice commission? If after 11 Feb, then yes, it was under President Ebert. But it would be simultanously under Minister-President Scheidemann.
My main point was that Ebert was never minister-president but served as Chancellor from the "abdication" of Wilhelm II until his own election as President. Str1977(talk)12:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240506122300","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Str1977-20240506122300-GHStPaulMN-20240506114500","replies":[]}}-->
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240603160900","author":"Darkwarriorblake","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Darkwarriorblake-20240603160900-June_2024","replies":["c-Str1977-20240603161200-Darkwarriorblake-20240603160900"]}}-->
I've been on Wikipedia for 19 years so your message here is insulting. Maybe you should heed your own advice.
You showed no reasoning behind your repeated reverting of my changes - and "unnecessary" is not a legitimate reasoning. Str1977(talk)16:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240603161200","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Str1977-20240603161200-Darkwarriorblake-20240603160900","replies":["c-Darkwarriorblake-20240603162300-Str1977-20240603161200"]}}-->
If you've been here 19 years you would know about: A) WP: BRD, and B) not accusing someone of ownership just because they're undoing your edits. Unnecessary is legitimate, I can write "not an improvement" if you'd prefer but the same message is delivered. We also have a spoken version of the article on top of it being a Featured Article so changes should have a significant reasoning behind them. For example you moved content about casting of minor characters above main characters for no reason. That would not be an improvement. You keep saying that George was not spying on Lorraine despite him being outside her house peeping into a bedroom window and not being quite as pregnant as her mom, and changing the credit for Lorraine Baines McFly to Lorraine Baines/McFly, when noone uses a slash in a double surname, at least not in English. You can feel your edits were warranted and WP: BRD would tell you to take it to the talk page to discuss it and gain support, my opinion is they were negative for the article and so I restored it to it's agreed upon and supported version. That's not a reason to take it personally. EDIT: I can also see you've changed Lorraine's name on the character list to Lorraine Baines/McFly with a note saying she was never Baines McFly, and yet the official site says she was. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240603162300","author":"Darkwarriorblake","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Darkwarriorblake-20240603162300-Str1977-20240603161200","replies":["c-Str1977-20240603164800-Darkwarriorblake-20240603162300"]}}-->
"not an improvement" is even worse. It amounts to no reason.
If you don't want to be accused of claiming OWNership, don't behave that way.
If it is really Lorraine, I am sure you can prove it.
The "double surname" doesn't exist. She is first called Baines, then McFly. The "official site" is no reliable source for that. Only the film is. Str1977(talk)16:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240603164800","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Str1977-20240603164800-Darkwarriorblake-20240603162300","replies":["c-Darkwarriorblake-20240603171300-Str1977-20240603164800"]}}-->
:/ I thought that would be the end of it but you're still claiming it's ownership to disagree with you and challenging me to prove things in the film. I think our discussion is at an end, use the film's talk page to solicit further input, I have no wish to interact with you further with that attitude. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240603171300","author":"Darkwarriorblake","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Darkwarriorblake-20240603171300-Str1977-20240603164800","replies":["c-Str1977-20240603173400-Darkwarriorblake-20240603171300"]}}-->
It is ownership to blanket revert any changes to an article even though can only claim that they are "unnecessary" or "not an improvement". Str1977(talk)17:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240603173400","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Str1977-20240603173400-Darkwarriorblake-20240603171300","replies":[]}}-->
Winkler: "Überdies wurde Deutschland seit dem 3. Oktober 1918 de facto und seit dem 28. Oktober de jure parlamentarisch regiert."
I'll leave it here and let you decide if de jure is an "empty" phrase. (Your last update is grammatically incorrect and needs to be changed anyway.) GHStPaulMN (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240621112100","author":"GHStPaulMN","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-GHStPaulMN-20240621112100-de_jure","replies":[]}}-->
If you want to replace "gay" with "lesbian", then cite new sources. The current citations just use gay. There is nothing such as lesbian there.[1][2]: said Deville—who is Daria Berenato, the first openly gay female wrestler in WWE history... --Mann Mann (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240718200800","author":"Mann Mann","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mann_Mann-20240718200800-Sonya_Deville","replies":["c-Str1977-20240718204100-Mann_Mann-20240718200800"]}}-->
By definition, a homosexual woman is called lesbian, a homosexual man is called gay. Citations misusing these terms is no reason for WP to follow suite. Also, the consensus on the talk page favours "lesbian". Str1977(talk)20:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240718204100","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Str1977-20240718204100-Mann_Mann-20240718200800","replies":[]}}-->
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241119000900","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-20241119000900-ArbCom_2024_Elections_voter_message","replies":[]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Hipal-20241214174500","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Dispute_resolution_for_Science_of_Identity_Foundation?-Sandbox-20241214174500","replies":["c-Hipal-20241214174500-Dispute_resolution_for_Science_of_Identity_Foundation?"],"text":"Dispute resolution for Science of Identity Foundation?","linkableTitle":"Dispute resolution for Science of Identity Foundation?"}-->
Dispute resolution for Science of Identity Foundation?
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Hipal-20241214174500","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Dispute_resolution_for_Science_of_Identity_Foundation?-Sandbox-20241214174500","replies":["c-Hipal-20241214174500-Dispute_resolution_for_Science_of_Identity_Foundation?"],"text":"Dispute resolution for Science of Identity Foundation?","linkableTitle":"Dispute resolution for Science of Identity Foundation?"}-->
Hi Str1977. Is there some sort of dispute resolution that you would like to try at this point? --Hipal (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241214174500","author":"Hipal","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hipal-20241214174500-Dispute_resolution_for_Science_of_Identity_Foundation?","replies":["c-Str1977-20241214183600-Hipal-20241214174500","c-Str1977-20241214183700-Hipal-20241214174500"]}}-->
The main ingredient to dispute resolution I see WP:RS and WP:NPOV, i.e. no more trying to remove sources by using this reasoning or that reasoning. In my latest edit I have worked entirely on sources already present in the discussion before and stuck closely to what they said. Str1977(talk)18:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241214183600","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Str1977-20241214183600-Hipal-20241214174500","replies":[]}}-->
PS. And no more bullying tactics like this. Str1977(talk)18:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241214183700","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Str1977-20241214183700-Hipal-20241214174500","replies":["c-Hipal-20241215183200-Str1977-20241214183700"]}}-->
From my perspective, you appear incapable of behaving in a manner that you are asking of me, and are projecting the problems you are causing on me. If you can change your behavior radically, then we might proceed along these lines, but it doesn't seem likely.
I'll try to come up with something that might work... --Hipal (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241215183200","author":"Hipal","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Hipal-20241215183200-Str1977-20241214183700","replies":["c-Str1977-20241215194000-Hipal-20241215183200"]}}-->
Indeed, if you change your behaviour radically, we might proceed. But as it is now, it has been a few years that I have encountered POV pushing that was that blatant. It is up to you to change your behaviour. I am not asking miracles of you. Str1977(talk)19:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241215194000","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Str1977-20241215194000-Hipal-20241215183200","replies":["c-Hipal-20241217180400-Str1977-20241215194000"]}}-->
Point out anything at all that is clearly problematic that I've done, and I'll do my best to rectify it. --Hipal (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241217180400","author":"Hipal","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Hipal-20241217180400-Str1977-20241215194000","replies":["c-Str1977-20241217202100-Hipal-20241217180400","c-Str1977-20241217202800-Hipal-20241217180400"]}}-->
I already pointed it out - and so did the admin who removed the entire section: including one side of the issue while removing the other is clearly problematic. Str1977(talk)20:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241217202100","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Str1977-20241217202100-Hipal-20241217180400","replies":[]}}-->
PS. You wrote on talk: "Regarding "...has since distanced herself...", we have not been able to find a reliable source for the content, so inclusion would violate BLP and POV."
This is a false claim and your part, as you very well know. It has been sourced to RS. Str1977(talk)20:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241217202800","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Str1977-20241217202800-Hipal-20241217180400","replies":["c-Hipal-20241219164100-Str1977-20241217202800"]}}-->
including one side of the issue while removing the other is clearly problematic You're misrepresenting the situation. There's an open RfC on those very topics.
It has been sourced to RS. What source is that? --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241219164100","author":"Hipal","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Hipal-20241219164100-Str1977-20241217202800","replies":["c-Str1977-20241219210500-Hipal-20241219164100"]}}-->
I am representing the situation (thus far) correctly. You know perfectly well what the source is. Str1977(talk)21:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241219210500","author":"Str1977","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Str1977-20241219210500-Hipal-20241219164100","replies":["c-Hipal-20241220190700-Str1977-20241219210500"]}}-->
You are referring to the Times of India reference, correct? --Hipal (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241220190700","author":"Hipal","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Hipal-20241220190700-Str1977-20241219210500","replies":[]}}-->
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241216003800","author":"ToBeFree","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-ToBeFree-20241216003800-December_2024","replies":[],"displayName":"~ ToBeFree"}}-->