Hi there! I'm well, though busy (and on a sort of wikibreak still). I think I commented on this somewhat recently: I would close the poll, even unofficially, and just go ahead and edit the leads as you propose (for which there's sufficient support, methinks). Note any anomalies, though, which should be fairly few.
Similarly, I'm slowly going through each of the country articles (actually their infoboxes) to add the longform English rendition – conventional_long_name – for consistency. Once I get through all of them, I will update the infobox template. (For an example, see Belgium; note though that the initial instance in the box will be nixed once this information is added to relevant articles.) If you'd like to assist (as you edit the leads), feel free. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem, sometimes, the articles seem to be all over the board, don't they? Have you checked out
Anne-Marie of Greece lately? Whoo boy!! I am always around if you need me. Have a good one.
Prsgodd
e
ss187
18:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
|
|
Hi, Gryffindor. Could you help me with this sentence in the German article on Kaiserslautern? "
1688 wurde die Stadt im
Pfälzischen Erbfolgekrieg und danach im
Spanischen Erbfolgekrieg
1703 erneut durch die Franzosen besetzt, Schloss und Burg wurden gesprengt." I'm ok until the very last part. I remember that "sprengen" isn't always "sprengen", if you know what I mean, but I'm not sure what specifically was called "sprengen" in those years. And I don't think they mean that the castles were "blown up", do they? Can you think of a better way to put it in English? Thanks for your help. --
Mmounties (
Talk)
23:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm reading Stressbusters page and you say you're willing to help anyone being Wikistalked.
I think I'm the victim of such a stalking.
...then all of a sudden...
...then..
(they're only going to get a new IP and continue the same pattern of misbehaviour)
...and I think Squad ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Four_legged_demon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) fit into this but I'm not sure how.
Any of these I mention to an admin get suspended swiftly but how exactly to deal with it? I've tried to be civil on their userpages, obviously they don't respond well to diplomacy.
Your thoughts? —
nath
a(?)
nrdotcom (
T •
C •
W)
06:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gryffindor/Archive6, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. Gizza Chat © 12:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) -- Here T oHelp 12:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.
Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»==Nichalp «Talk»= 12:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine :P. Enjoy the buttons! -- Cel es tianpower háblame 17:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the standard template I use to greet new sysops. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Since you seems to be online... I'm trying to think of the name of the guy who in Greek legend/mythology had to keep rolling the big rock up the hill and every time he was almost there it kept rolling back down and I'm blanking out on him. Can you think of his name? Thanks. --
Mmounties (
Talk)
If I would've known, I would've supported. Congratulations! —
nath
a(?)
nrdotcom (
T •
C •
W)
17:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine ... though somewhat fatigued. :) Anyhow, congrats on your successful RfA! Now, onto the country article leads!? ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, enjoy your mop and bucket! - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 18:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well done from me too, sorry to have missed your RfA. Good luck. -- Cactus.man ✍ 12:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
In regards to assistance, just cheer me up every now and then, and that'll be more than enough. You deserved my vote, good luck in the future. Karm a fist Save Wikipedia 19:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote of confidence in my recent request for bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I greatly appreciate your support and hope I will continue to have your respect. Also, congrats on your adminship! Thank you! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 22:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Glad to hear you've got the mop and bucket! I was actually commenting on the poor userboxes being so squishy, but it looks like someone fixed that for you this morning. :) If I can ever be of any help, feel free to drop me a line. .:. Jareth.:. babelfish 12:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gryffindor, the table on the Glock#Table of Glock pistols looks fine to me; the {{prettytable}} has been substituted, so I think it's fine. But you can remove the bgcolor=#ddeeff from the table if you don't want any background color. Hope this helps. If you need any more info, don't hesitate to contact me! Thanks for wishing me good luck in my exams! K ilo-Lima| (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
A special message deserves a separate reply: I was quite happy to support your RfA, and I know you'll be doing fine work. An extra thanks for the barnstar and a special request on that behalf: would you be so kind and move it to my appropriate subpage (Awards and Goodies); I'm loath to do so myself, as that could be misconstrued). Happy editing and have a nice wiki life. Lectonar 13:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It has been suggested by User:BrianSmithson and supported by User:Syrthiss that the Beer and brewery categories should be renamed. This proposal has been supported and expanded by myself. The notion is that the regional categories should follow the format of "Beer and breweries in Africa" /Europe/Asia/North America/South America/Oceania. "Brewers and breweries" could also be renamed "Beer and breweries by region". And all the countries should also be renamed (and merged if needed) as, for example, "Beer and breweries of Germany", "Beer and breweries of Britain", "Beer and breweries of Poland". The word in each case would be beer rather than beers to allow for general articles on beer culture in each region as well as individual beers.
Comments, suggestions, objections, free beer and simple votes to Wiki Beer Project SilkTork 15:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Not too surprised, I hope: you're making me wonder just how gruff I was with you. :) In any case, well done, I'm sure you'll use the tools well. Alai 17:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations on your adminship. Please remember to stay away from "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named". ;-) Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GDFL. |
Congratulations from me, too, naturally! — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 20:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Kurfürst was a personal dignity, held by one king, one one duke, one markgraf and one pfalzgraf (plus three archbishops). The legitimate children of each would take their father's principal title, so the daughter of the Duke of Saxony (who was also a Kurfürst) would be styled a duchess or Herzogin until her marriage, at which time she would take the rank of her husband. In the case of Marie-Josèphe of Saxony, that fact that the duke who was her father was also the elected King of Poland is, I believe, irrelevant because the throne was not hereditary so her generation had no claim to the transitory royal status, only the persistent ducal status. -- StanZegel (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Congrats! You now have the mop! -- Exir Kamalabadi Join Esperanza! 11:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, your monobook.js adds goodies to your interface like an edit count tab for user and talk pages, block and blocklog tabs alongside that, auto- afd, a link to the current page's logs in the left panel's toolbox, and other helpful tools. The code (mainly nicked from other users ;) works better in Mozilla Firefox than in Internet Explorer. If you decide to sign up as an admin coach, by the way, you'd make a great one for a very lucky coachee. :) Cheers, Sango 123 (e) 11:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
osu Nihonjoe,
you have asked for some help in moving the discussion page? I am a sysop and could be of assistance maybe, however I need to know what exactly happened what exactly is your request? Feel free to contact me any time, with kind regards. Gryffindor 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
|
|
I responded at my own talk. If you leave another message calling for an answer, please stop by later. I generally respond to requests at my own talk to preserve the context. -- Irpen 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Deckiller has blocked the AOL ISP 207.200.116.134. I know this because I use AOL, and his block has effected me. Can you please remove the block promptly, I am in the middle of remodeling the Marshall, Texas article which currently has an inuse notice on it. If not can you remove the inuse notice from the page. Thanks. - JCarriker 22:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have never been sure what your position on these matters is; the following propositions seem to be either true or guidelines, depending:
I do notice that you're not quite in danger of breaking the 3RR... The first one was almost a month ago! OTOH, that doesn't help much, if Irpen keeps re-reverting back again. I must admit I'm not really fully up on custom and practice of WP image policy in general, or "old looking" images in particular. Perhaps you might enquire at WP:IUP, say? Alai 23:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
He's clearly not broken the 3RR, as the rule is against more than three reverts per 24h. Hope you guys end up with some sort of agreement on this. Alai 16:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Gryffindor! Thank you for your nice words and support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, these articles listed in these contribs need to be sprotected because they keep getting hit by the same vandal (but different IPs, and they're all new anons). (Some admins' talk pages are getting hit too, and I don't know what you want to do with those) It'll give you something to do with your shiny new powers if you agree with me. :)
They are mostly the same articles being hit repeatedly. This is just disgraceful and childish. —
nath
a
nrdotcom (
T •
C •
W)
14:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Greetings! Yes, that article could be protected; however if you look at the history of this particular vandal, you will see (example -- the last one on the list above, 213.140.56.244) that he doesn't really care what article he vandalises, he just wants his edit summary to show on recent changes. The only advantage of this type of vandal is that they "out" a lot of open proxies, allowing us to block them indefinitely. Antandrus (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
As of your other question, it's a judgement call. I'm no expert on image tagging. It looks like an old image to me so PD-art or something similar would apply. Placing no-source tags on obvious ripoffs from websites and magazines is probably more important to the project, but that's just my opinion. Hope that helps and happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I made Gomperz and Laufer article. can you expand? -- Sheynhertz געשׁ״ך 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, i just thought seeing as we don't have a spammer to tell us when to choose our 1 finalist, that i would tell you my self. Remember to elect your one finalist from 3, and then email all 5 scores to Rune Welsh. Thanks! -- Ali K 08:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Tnx for leaving us a message, and if any Poland-related images come up for deletion please let us know and we will try to look for sources. Btw, take a look at Image:PZL P.11c.jpg. Is scan an acceptable source? Is there a way to tag such images to prevent the Lazy Bot (aka OrphanBot) from tagging scanned images as unsourced? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gryffindor,
Could you take a look at the vote at this page? It's up for a move but there is no reason for it to be, to be honest. I posted evidence to prove it. But please, as always, decide for yourself. Charles 22:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey there!
I stumbled across the article on Joska Fischer, and found it to be horribly biased. I dont know half as much as I should to actually correct the article though. Seeing as you are Category:User de-N, study international politics and have several environmentally friendly uboxes, I though you might want to take look!
Thanks! The Minist e r of War (Peace) 00:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Please put all tasty Easter wishes here!
Hi Gryffindor,
I have brought the articles for these two emperors up for move. Would you care to lend some insight and possibly a vote? Thanks. (Oh, and I did rather well on those exams I was telling you about) Charles 20:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the personal "thank you" for voting on your RfA. I know I'm late, but I just wanted to let you know CONGRATS on getting the mop, and I hope you're enjoying it. All the best!-- Violin G irl ♪ 18:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
... on the Marcel Prawy article! All the best, <KF> 22:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
That is a very interesting question. With Spanish nobles (and with all others), I believe we should always use the highest title, unless they are well known by a name and surname or by another title. If there are mutiple high titles, like with the Duchess of Alba, the best known title should be used, as it is in that case. For instance, in the British system, there is are people with mutliple titles of the same degree who are only known by one or two (there is a duke three times over, who I cannot recall at the moment, who is known by two of his ducal titles). Spanish is usually very clean and easy to translate. I do think English should be used when at all possible. Much like titles in French using des or du (Marquis des Baux, etc), those particles generally become of. Using of the or of los is something that requires careful thought and some investigation. The form of Ambrosia Spinola, Marquess of Balbases is completely acceptable in my opinion unless Balbases is say, a collection of lands or islands, etc, which would make it truly plural. So yes, in short, I do believe English should be used whenever possible and untranslated versions should be left for titles for which the translation is not known or exact (Chevalier, Chatelain (which is castellan, but that is awkward), Vidame, etc). French should be the only one with exceptions, where either language is common. One must remember, French enjoyed the status of lingua franca for many centuries. Charles 13:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gryffindor,
I've been posting the various articles on Spanish viceroys of New Spain, most of them new. It's nice to see someone reading them!
However, I would like to point out something about the use of titles in the Spanish reference works I've consulted. Lists of viceroys are sometimes given with the name and title, and sometimes with the name only. But in encyclopedia-like articles, the title of the person is never given in the title of the article (Enciclopedia de México, now part of Britannica, for example). Literally never in all the works I have access to. They are all Mexican, so I can't be sure the same conventions are used in Spain, but I have no evidence that they aren't. So moving a link in an alphabetical category list to the title rather than the name means it won't be in the place where Mexicans will look for it. Rbraunwa 18:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gryffindor,
Thanks for the link to the non-royal names conventions. I'd had trouble finding that before.
Putting a nobleman's title in the title of an article would not be my first preference, but obviously it works either way, and I understand the desire for consistency. I don't have a problem with that usage. However, alphabetizing a viceroy's entry under his title rather than his name is more problamatic. As I mentioned, in chronological lists of viceroys in Mexico, the title is frequently given after the name, but not always. However, in alphabetical listings, the viceroy is always found under the first of his surnames, never under the title. So listing these individuals in alphabetical category lists under their titles is making them more difficult to find. And I don't think this applies only to Mexican historians. I think it applies to English-speaking scholars of Mexico as well. What the situtation in Spain is, I have no idea, but in Mexico these individuals are thought of by name, not by title. It seems to me this is not far from the example of Bertrand Russell given in the "Other non-royal names" section. Rbraunwa 17:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Congrats on your selectionas an administrator. I had fallen sick and so missed the party! A belated Easter greetings. -- Bhadani 09:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Louise was the consort of sovereign Duke who yielded authority over his duchy as such a sovereign. I think she should be left as is unless the rule unambiguously states that the consort treatment is used only for queens and empresses. I personally feel it is applicable to all situations in which the consort in question can be considered the wife of a sovereign -- whether minor or major. Charles 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not normal - or appropriate - in an encyclopedia article to list all of a person's titles in the first sentence. It is also contrary to Wikiquette to change British to American spelling (marquess to marquis) - although admittedly the later is also used in Britain. Noel S McFerran 05:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I thought I would let you know how I was doing regarding the Tale of Genji.
I ended switching to the Seidensticker translation because I found it too difficult as first-time reader to keep track of the characters in the Tyler version. I own both editions, so if I want some cultural detail clarified, I need only consult the vastly superior footnotes of the Tyler edition.
I've only made it halfway through the book, because I find it very easy to get distracted by other things (TV, music, other people talking) and a book like this really does demand more concentration than the average novel.
I've made a few notes along the way (not nearly enough) and I do plan on proceeding with the Genji chapter summary project. In the meantime, I've also established an account on French Wikipédia, and I've found that their articles on The Tale of Genji (French article) and fr:Murasaki Shikibu are much less developed than the English language versions.
Congratulations on becoming an administrator, BTW. -- Tachikoma 22:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You might want to look at
Reza Pahlavi II. It really is a most appallingly shoddy article, but is being defended by a coterie of Iranian monarchists who think the hagiographic tone is acceptable. Even the name, given that he is not a reigning monarch, is questionable.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
20:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Gryffindor, how are you doing? Would you care to check this out and tell me what you think? I am certain that this woman is a hoax. The woman in question does not exist outside of WP results and a few delusional forum postings by a guy claiming to be a viscount. It was claimed that this woman is descended from the Archduke Louis, a son of Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor. Archduke Louis appears to have died childless and an Anna Victoria alleged to have been his daughter does not exist as a Countess of Habsburg-Lorraine, as claimed. Charles 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop writing anachronisms to biographies of medieval Habsburgs. If youknow anything about the use of the title of archduke, you would know that the assumption by Rudolf IV was based on a document he had forged, and only Frederick III granted the title officially, first to his son and later to certain male cousins. First archduchesses appear only among their descendants. Shilkanni 09:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You are incorrect when indicating that before Rudolf IV, the title somehow already was in existence. Of course, since the first forgery ever to introduce the idea was made at instigation of Rudolf IV, none had thus even heard of it before. Emperor Charles IV refused to recognize the title Rudolf IV had invented through that forgery, so it was not in use even in Rudolf's time nor in long time afterwards. I request you not to spread untruths like "the title 'Archduke' was not fully introduced until Rudolf IV". The history of the title archduke (see that article) goes so that Frederick III confirmed the title in 1453, but only to actual rulers of Austrian territories, i.e himself. A couple of years later, Frederick's younger brother (when receiving his province of trans-Enns) started to use it. Only in 1477, the first cousin was authorized to use it. Frederick's son and heir Maximilian started to use it only after his wife's death that occurred in 1482. In 15th century, it was limited to actual rulers, so no female children used it. Only later, on 16th century, daughters became entitled to it. (the actual use can be checked from e.g [1]) Documents show that Ladislaus the Posthumous, who died in 1457, never used it - he used the title "Duke of Austria". Ladislaus' sister elisabeth accordingly was never an archduchess. The title you have written in that article (and possibly to others) therefore show just bad scholarship, not any proper handling of history. Contrary to your conclusion "I do not see any problems with the referral", there are obvious problems in such referrals, as any objective historian understands. Shilkanni 09:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It is only natural to ask whether the error is systematical, i.e repeated over a multitude of articles. Of course you are incorrect in alleging "she was referred as such" - there are no documents to show such (contemporaneous) referral. If you know any such documents, please kindly list them as sources, as actually is required by WP relevant policy. Shilkanni 10:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Please do other editors a favour and start to use extended edit summaries. Such summaries as "fix" are of little help, really. -- Ghirla -трёп- 10:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
|
Hello Gryffindor/Archive6, and thanks for supporting me on my recent request for adminship! It has succeeded with an unanimous support of 67 votes, so that I am now an administrator. Please feel free to leave a note on my talk page should you wish to leave any comments or ask for any help. Again, thanks a lot, AndyZ t 22:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
Primat e #101 05:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Happy birthday!!! I hope it was awesomely stupendous!! -- Nataly a 23:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a place that I generally come to when I have free time or to just browse. Lately, however, I have been experiencing what I can best describe as an effort by some (numbering in the low single digits) to oppose or revert some of the most innocent edits I have made, dragging me into long discussions that frequently result in disparaging remarks with regard to my character or motive. As a place of relaxation, it is completely unacceptable to me. Since it is relentless and continuous, I have come up with an analogy: If you built a house on a fault line and it was knocked over in an earthquake, how many times could you rebuild it? Don't get me wrong, I have a strong character but I suffer from low patience. My edits, in good faith, are generally not substantial, but mere tidbits. When someone initiates a lengthy argument about them, I want to come to this place less and less. I am still on the fence as to whether I will make my absence permanent or temporary and when it will commence. It will definitely occur though. You and I haven't seen eye to eye on some things, but I've always enjoyed our banter on royals, naming, etc. When/if I come back (subject to when I leave), I will be very glad to resume them. Charles 19:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
|
|
Hi, I am a new Wikipedian looking for advice. I would like to upload 2 .jpeg images to the article about Frederic Bourin. Specifically, they're 2 face pics. I found them on a couple of news articles , (two Estonian, one Vietnamese) as well as a blog (American), and I haven't found anything to indicate that it has been copyrighted. Before I post it, I want to make sure that I'm not violating any Wikipolicies. Since you contributed to the article on how to tag copyrighted materials, and you have a cool nickname, I figured you would be the person to ask. Here are the links to the pages of origin, in the event that you see something I missed, which would indicate a copyright or other sticky mess that is better just avoided. http://noviomagus.tripod.com/chat/index.blog?entry_id=1133210 http://www.postimees.ee/140605/esileht/midagi_erilist/168761.php http://www.vnexpress.net/Vietnam/The-gioi/Cuoc-song-do-day/2005/06/3B9DF26C/ http://www.postimees.ee/140605/esileht/midagi_erilist/168761.php
You're too awesome for words, Gryf. Thanks!
Wandering Star
20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Somebody asked for input regarding a naming convention. As you are both Austrian and interested in naming conventions, I was wondering whether you could help? I'm not certain we actually have Austrians reading the noticeboard, so I thought I'd write an extra message. Kusma (討論) 16:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Gryffindor. I noticed you changed a few country articles from language such as "The Republic of Cameroon is . . . " to "Cameroon, offiicially the Republic of Cameroon, is . . . ". Can you point me to what convention you are basing these changes on? Thanks, — BrianSmithson 18:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I replied on my page :-) Fantasy 10:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I received some really good advice on my departure page about ignoring the problems and just going back after the fact. I am taking that advice as reason for me to stick around, but not on an indepth basis. Sorry for the drama I might have caused with my initial decision to leave! Charles 20:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gryffindor;
Can you join the vote at Talk:Marie-Chantal, Princess of Greece and Denmark and Talk:Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin? They have been moved without discussion. Thanks. Charles 16:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gryffindor;
I have been looking over the Austrian nobility page and have been thinking that it's time to clean it up a bit. Since that is practically where we started talking, I thought I'd ask you about the following:
For the headings of families by rank, I believe that English titles would suffice. For instance, Archdukes and Archduchess or Archducal families and, say, Princes and Princesses or Princely families. The translations for the titles already exist higher up on the page, or they could be included under the headings themselves. I believe it would be much neater. Also, for the naming, how about a chart like the format used at Pretender? It would look like this:
Family |
Preposition preceding family name |
Current name |
Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Kinsky von Wchinitz und Tettau | none | Kinsky | Also of comital rank |
Esterházy von Galántha | none | Esterházy | Also Esterházy de Galántha |
Liechtenstein | von und zu | von und zu Liechtenstein | Currently reigning |
What do you think? Charles 20:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ernest Aug. and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; what are the correct ordinals anyway; and Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 10:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Gryffindor! In brief, I have no objection to either Mary Vetsera or Baroness Mary Vetsera. Nice to hear from you. Are there major renaming wars going on that I'm blissfully unaware of?<g> My preference is for simply Mary Vetsera, as "Freiin" is really more like a courtesy title than something substantive. Though I'm not sure that we've even discussed leaving titles that a person cannot transmit out of article titles... but as I said, either is fine if either seems more consistent with current WIkipedia preferences to you. - Nunh-huh 00:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, actually I created the article at "Leopold V of Austria", I think the person who moved it was User:Martg76, so you probably should ask him (although I see it has been moved now anyway). Adam Bishop 02:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The very first thing I notice is what I had noticed with Elisabeth of Austria... She was a duchess. Maria Anna was most certainly a duchess of Bavaria, but there are people here who would have a fit at the sight of Duchess Maria Anna of Bavaria (not that I would mind). Now, upon checking her father's page, all the children are listed as dukes and duchesses. That convinces me that she should be at Duchess Maria Anna of Bavaria. Charles 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. I have noticed a spate of vandalism on this page recently, including one (the use of "nigger" in place of his surname) which people have missed for a while. Is there some procedure to lock this down for a while to stop people doing this? It seems to be a popular target at the moment. Enigmatical 22:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Takes all kinds, I guess. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 00:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you please explain your unexplained use of rollback on my edits? What about it do you consider vandalism? Thanks. Guettarda 14:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You got after this guy for making such moves before. Check out the activity from about May 24 to May 27. I have also notified Jtdirl. Charles 19:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your adding of infoboxes in Italian communes (I checked your intervention in Como and Varese, for example. However, the data you put were rather chaotic. If you have problems, let me know when you add one and I'll provide to format it properly taking data from the Italian Wikipedia. Do you agree? Let me know, and thanks for good work. User:Attilios
You're the second person to ask me this. I visited Commons and could not see any explanation of how it works. Either it needs to be made more newby-friendly or I need to be given a tutorial. Adam 22:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Gryffindor,
Stefanp has reverted this page three times within ninety minutes. Can you do something? Thanks. Noel S McFerran 21:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave , Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gryff, wie gehts? I realize I'm a little late :S, but I wanted to congratulate you on your Adminship! Well done! Cheers, Redux 21:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Kindly refrain from moving pages to ambiguate locations. I observed that you have recently moved the article about the second wife of Ferdinand II to the ambiguate location Eleonore Gonzaga, despite of the fact that you have to be aware that there are two equally important persons named Eleonore Gonzaga. The other, as you presumably know and anyway will easily find out, is the third wife of Ferdinand III, and precisely the same names (Eleonore Gonzaga, Eleonora Gonzaga, Eleanor of Mantua...) were and are used of her too. So, there is a full need to disambiguate (pre-emptively) between these two women. Against that necessity is your action, and therefore your action will be regarded as disruptive towards Wikipedia. You have by your action frustrated work of others who have sacrificed their time and work to make Wikipedia better. In case of you having been ignorant, the bigger is the need to you to realize your own ignorance and consequently you to refrain from actions in articles of whose issues you are so ignorant. Please refrain from your disruptive behavior. Shilkanni 11:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gryffindor;
The following user's actions may be of interest to those involved in royal articles: Here and here. The user has been warned a few times by a few different people. Charles 00:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've just visited this page. Might I use your templates in my talk page? bee gee 01:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for your welcome. : ) B G 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gryffindor;
How much do you know about Hessian landgraves and princes? Check this out. This user has been moving many Hessian royals around, leaving anywhere from double to quadruple redirects. I have fixed a lot of them, but the moves as of the twentieth have me confused. Charles 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gryffindor;
Would you consider visiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish pedigree of Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar and contributing? Thanks. Charles 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Remember the country leads? The "officially" issue? I really dislike how all the countries have that "officially" preamble (again) —well, aside from the U.S, U.K., Israel, and other equales among firsts— I guess I should have been paying attention, then I would not have missed your 2nd run, but I've been busy in other areas. So should we revert war over a few hunderd of entries as I replace the dreaded "officially" with "or"? Or maybe add "official shortform" to every entry, just as a case in point? It should be interesting, in either event. Yours, in displeasure, El_C 07:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
hello El C,
I don't know why you are suggesting that an "edit war" be started? The topic has been discussed and a vote held which was approved with a majority. I don't see any need to start an "edit war" about an approved policy, nor am I interested in opening up this topic again. with kind regards Gryffindor 07:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The topic has been discussed and a vote held which was approved with a majority.
Without me, though. Link?
El_C
08:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I realize this is harsh, but all the country lead sentences read really akwardly now, and not because the longform is 2nd to the shortform (which was the original argument), I concede to that. It is the monolithic "officially." Read what Guettarda says: Having had the misfortune of having the Xxxxx, officially the Yyyyyy of Xxxx style imposed upon a number of country articles I edit, I would like to say that I am very strongly opposed to this style because it's clunky and almost unreadable. Isn't this project supposed to work in the interest of the reader? Also, it might be nice to have the countesy to inform the editors active on country articles before you make changes. Guettarda 12:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Had I been informed of your proposal, those changes would have never happned. Now I think they should be changed. I retract what I said above, though I'm still dissapointed you could'nt bother informing me. So next time, please try to keep such things in mind. It makes a considerable difference, as you can see. I want those leads changed to a less monolithic format, though. Not to mention accurate — i.e. why "official" longform when there is also the official shortform. Do you understand what I mean now? Regards,
El_C
12:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I want to also focus on the misperception that I believe you were expressing, wherein: a. such disputes should be settled by a vote — not to mention this vote involved merely five editors, and with one opposing, the support is bellow the +80% supermajority that can be seen as consensus. And b. that such a vote counts as policy. As an admin, you have to be very careful that you understand how the content front of wikipedia works, because inexperienced editors may be miseld to think this is how things are done. El_C 12:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Look, I like you, I think you're a nice guy and that you're well-meaning, and I'm sorry I've hurt your feelings, but you've hurt me, too, which you do not appear to acknowledge. Beyond reminding you that that specific renaming style does not count as "approved policy" (it's not disapproved, either), I want us to put the harshness behind us. I'd rather address the issues at hand (not right now, though). Again, I apologize for the heated manner in which I expressed my frustration, as justifiable as I may find it. I won't be proposing changes for a while, so you are not obliged to respond to this. I will drop you a note at that time, and you can decide then whether you're interested in revsiting the issue. Regards, El_C 05:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.
As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.
Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, — Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Gryffindor! I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. Please put it on your watchlist, and please add relevant AfD's as you find them. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 19:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gryffindor;
How are you? These problems, I can vaguely recall some issues, but I can't remember what they are. I've been fairly busy, so I assume they have just smoothed over. Charles 16:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support for my recent RfA, which I'm quite happy to announce has passed with a consensus of 67 supporting, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. I'm glad I meet your criteria. Most of all, I'm glad you took the time to evaluate my candidacy, as I believe that's what keeps RfA running smoothly, and I'll be working hard to justify the vote of confidence you've placed in me. Please let me know at my talk page if you have any comments on my performance as an admin. Thanks! TheProject 02:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for voting! Hello Gryffindor/Archive6, and thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'm pleased to announce that it passed with a final tally of (96/0/0). I was overwhelmed by all of the nice comments and votes of confidence from everyone. Thanks again, and see you around! OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
Could you kindly withdraw your opposing vote from Talk:Frederick, Landgrave of Hesse. It seems to me that you did not realize that the page requested to be moved is a disambiguation page, and not an article. You did not write any reason for your opposition. ObRoy 10:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I need help at this page. A user keeps on reverting away that it is German for Baron although it literally means free lord. It's the same situation as velikii kniaz being called Grand Duke in English when it "really" means Great Prince. The user, Fastifex reverts to remove that it is established as Baron in English. I mean, we don't have Free Lady Mary Vetsera, do we? Charles 13:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain those are the current party logos; at least they're lifted directly from the partyies' pages. Would you at least agree that they are the ones that should be used in Austrian legislative election, 2006? — Nightst a llion (?) 10:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Not really .... Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [2] SilkTork 12:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gryffindor;
Not too much is going on with me at the moment. Basically some university prep stuff and searching for a new place to live.
Augusta was a Gräfin Reuß zu Ebersdorf und Lobenstein, literally a Countess Reuss in (or rather, at) Ebersdorf and Lobenstein. In English, zu usually becomes of, or is best understood to native English speakers as of. My feeling is that the article should be titled Augusta Reuss, Augusta Reuss of Ebersdorf or Augusta Reuss of Ebersdorf and Lobenstein. The first one is the simplest and is accurate, but not at accurate as the others which are long and drawn-out. So between my three choices, Augusta Reuss is the strongest to me. What do you think? The Freiherr issue has quieted down a fair bit and I think it has been settled. Charles 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi again, Gryffindor;
Are you sure that the title of archduke was given to Prince Albert? I'm inclined to not believe it, but if it indeed did happen... Charles 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Esperanza.Fhloston.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)