User talk:Albert Krantz

Welcome!
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions or place   on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Raven in Orbit (t|c) 15:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks to years
Welcome! I noticed this edit and I thought I should stop by and let you know that individual years are usually not wikilinked per manual of style (MOS:UNLINKYEARS). Also language icons like is usually placed in front of the reference. Thanks, Renata (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Britannicus
Do you have a citation for the amended birthdate and death dates for Britannicus? The original dates were from the sources listed on the page, so I'd be interested to know your source for his birthday.LaurenCole (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I borrowed this dates from russian book Vladimir Dmitrienko. Vlastiteli Rima. Vrem'a pravlenia Oktaviana Avgusta i dinastii Juliev-Klavdiev (Rulers of Rome. Rule of Octavianus Augustus and Julio-Claudian dynasty). Moscow, 2004, p. 572. It is definetely not a misprint. But personally I tend to agree with the birthdate of 12th of February, I believe that Mr. Dmitrienko is mistaken here. However, there is no evidence that Britannicus was murdered directly on 11th February or any other certain day. It happened some time before his fourteenth birthday, it is all we can know. — Albert Krantz ¿? 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

Livonian Order
Please stop going over articles and replacing Livonian Order with "Teutonic Order in Livonia". You had your opposition to your opinions at the talk page where you wanted to rename the article, working around it the way you do is not going help to bring it to a conclusion you'd like to see... thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Livonian Order move request
I empathize with your feelings about your move request of Livonian Order. Admins can pretty much decide what they want without explanation under the guise of consensus. However, there are several ways you can attempt to appeal the decision. First, you could address what you said on my talk page to the closing admin, User:JPG-GR, for his or her reasoning on deciding "no consensus" since no was provided at the request closure. If you are not satisfied with the answer, you can post an appeal at the RM talk page, WT:RM.

In this case, I can see that User:JPG-GR, who tends to be conservative, probably made a good decision. Even though there was a good deal of general support for a move, the opposition had valid arguments. This, combined with a lack of agreement on the exact new title, the long discussion, and lack of sustained participation by many users made deciding "no consensus" an easy choice.

Therefore, as with similar cases, I would suggest a different approach. Rather than appealing the decision, re-open the discussion in a new section (something like "Requested move continued"). Try to frame the discussion more narrowly, based on what has already been discussed previously. For example, give 2 or 3 clear choices of action such as:


 * 1) Move article to Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order
 * 2) Keep article at Livonian Order
 * 3) Merge Livonian Order with Livonian Brothers of the Sword

and ask for participants to register "support" for their preferred action. Then notify all of the participants in the previous discussion on their respective talk pages of this new request. Ths will allow all previous participants as well as others to review the previous discussion and make a decision based on the cases put forth.

An example of where I've done this before is at prunus mume. After an original RM was declared "no consensus" despite support for a move by many users, I re-opened the RM but with the "Survey" section subdivided into "Support" and "Oppose" subsections so that the participants wishes could be clearer. —  AjaxSmack   02:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bubonic Plague
Hi, I presume this change to remove many interwiki links was deliberate. Could you explain? An edit summary would have helped. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand it, bubonic plague is a form of plague. Removed interwiki were about plague in general. The list below could be very helpful. — Albert Krantz, 08:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC).


 * I suspected as much from the few languages I knew. Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation (and edit summary would still be a good thing). (John User:Jwy talk) 15:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)