User talk:Gryffindor/Archive6

''Please do not edit. This is an archive page.''

Country leads
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)


 * Hi there! I'm well, though swamped; forgive my tardiness.  Generally, it looks good; I've tweaked it (more for formatting), and peruse other/multilingual examples s'more ... but go ahead!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Voting
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)

Kaiserslautern
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)

Wikistalked.
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.


 * vandalizing my userpage
 * repeated attacks in his/her talk page eventually getting him/her blocked for harassment.
 * repeated attacks in his/her talk page eventually getting him/her blocked for harassment.

...then all of a sudden...


 * adds comments to said userpage as if he/she were the same user
 * and gets a few warnings on his/her talk page
 * and gets a few warnings on his/her talk page

...then..


 * again comments on 67.71.142.187's talk page as if he/she were the same person
 * vandalizes my userpage
 * ...and that of several others if you can see the contribs.
 * ...and gets blocked as per talk page, also for harassment.
 * ...and gets blocked as per talk page, also for harassment.

(they're only going to get a new IP and continue the same pattern of misbehaviour)

...and I think /  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)

DaGizza's RfA


Hi, 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. GizzaChat  © 12:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA
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?) --HereToHelp 12:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You're a sysop!
Hi,, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop 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)


 * Congrats! You deserve this and keep up the good work! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sweet! --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 14:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. All the best for the future. - Aksi_gr e at 15:58, 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)

Hi
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 )
 * Yes! I knew I could rely on you!  I couldn't - for the live of me - think of him.  I was stuck on Phyrrus for some reason.  ;-).  Thanks.  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 16:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha! I know the way she feels!  (I just came across the PRIME example of Sisyphusarbeit in Wiki.  It's the links to disambig pages.  My God!  Anyone needing edits in mainspace, this is the place to get them. Let me tell you!)  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 17:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA.


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)


 * Take as long as you need. Let me know when you'd like to proceed with the country leads, and we can deal with it and related items strategically; also feel free to bounce some country lead notions/proposed guidelines off of me beforehand.  Enjoy your new mop! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, enjoy your mop and bucket! - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 18:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats, Gryffindor! Shyam  ( T / C ) 18:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, Gryffindor!! I've been so busy, I haven't kept up with the RfA's. Way to go! [[Image:smiley.png|25px]] Prsgodd e ss187 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done. enochlau (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! It always makes my day to see deserving users finally get recognized.   _-M     o     P-_     21:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the first-ever admin with no userpage (as evidenced by the red link in his signature)! [[image:smiley.png|20px]] Oh well, you totally deserved adminship, so congratulations! Nice to know that RFA still gets some things right! Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 01:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats from me too - If you have any trouble working out how to operate the devandalationizer or speedicomatic on your administrinator 5000 TM  just drop me a note :) Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  06:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations Gryffindor, good luck --Ugur Basak 08:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on becoming an admin! Use your mop, well! -- Andy123  (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)]

Well done from me too, sorry to have missed your RfA. Good luck. -- Cactus.man ✍ 12:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * *bow* thank you everyone, that's really sweet of you.... :-)) I won't dissapoint you Gryffindor  12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Thank You
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)


 * Congratulations on becoming a Wiki-Nerd (Level 2 Certified) - Green Giant 21:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
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)

Congrats
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)

Glock
Hi Gryffindor, the table on the Glock#Table of Glock pistols looks fine to me; the 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)

Thank you
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 really isn't modesty, but there have been 2 or 3 rather unhappy incidents (if you will look at the AN/i and AN pages in the future, you'll see... and I'm on my way of archiving my talkpage, so go ahead. Lectonar 14:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Beer cats & kittens
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)

RFA
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!
Congratulations on your adminship. Please remember to stay away from "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named". ;-) Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! You deserved it, and are most welcome! It was a pleasure working with you and Sango, it was an honor. Cheers! And let me know if you ever need my assistance for anything.  Ban  e  z 


 * Yeah, it was definitely fun working with you and Banes. But now that the community's agreed to put you to work, start mopping! ;) By the way, I added some handy buttons and links for you at User:Gryffindor/monobook.js. Hope you like them! Cheers,  Sango 123   (e)  03:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations from me, too, naturally! &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 20:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Kurfürstkindern
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)
 * Although I agree that Kurfürst was an office that could only be held by one prince at a time, it was, after all, hereditary. The electoral dynasties gradually adopted the princely title for their cadets until, by the early 19th century, most of their daughters used princess rather than duchess, margravine or countess palatine (Pfalzgräfin), e.g. daughters of the Electors of Hesse(-Kassel), who alone continued to use Kurfürst as their monarchical title until they ceased to reign in 1866.


 * According to the 1961 Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels Fürstliche Häuser Band VI, Page 19, Marie-Josèphe's elder sister, Marie Amalie (1724-1760), prior to her 1738 marriage to King Carlos III of Spain, was titled (in abbreviation) "Przssin v. Sachsen". Although the Handbuch is not flawless, it does research and record titulature as well as genealogy, whereas the Online Gotha focuses on genealogy more than correct titulature, particularly for previous centuries (the Handbuch is considered the modern incarnation of the original Almanach de Gotha, not to be confused with the current series of that name, which is error-prone as well as hopelessly POV). The only authority that is arguably more accurate on historical titles than the Handbuch is Michel Huberty's "L'Allemagne Dynastique" (AD), which always cites precise, contemporary sources, and begins each volume with a section outlining the history of the dynasty's exact titles. But I don't have a copy of Huberty's volume on Saxony, which is out of print. However, another of Marie-Josèphe's sisters, Marie-Anne (1728-1797), can be found on p. 278 of AD's 1985 Tome IV on the Wittelsbachs, which records her marriage to the Elector Maximilian III of Bavaria. There it is noted that she was the daughter of "Frédéric II, Electeur de Saxe et Roi de Pologne", and her title is given as "princesse de Saxe". Where the Handbuch and AD agree on a title, I have yet to find error! Lethiere 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (In reply to your note on my talk page). Yes, AD and GHdA both do excellent research and can be relied upon more than any source, short of a relevant document issued by the Polish or Saxon court during Marie-Josèphe's life time. I joined in your conversation with Stan Zegel after following the Marie-Josèphe Talk discussion and tracking it over to your page. Albert of Saxe-Techen was undoubtedly entitled to Prince if his sisters were, but used his ducal title as Teschen's Landesherr. This was typical, just as the rulers of the County of Montbéliard (Mompelgard) reigned as "Dukes of Wurttemberg-Montbéliard because cadets of the House of Wurttemberg were all dukes thereof, and simply carried that higher title with them while ruling an immediate countship.


 * I followed your earlier discussion, and I agree with Charles that "Ritter" and "Edler" (but not "Edler Herr") were ranks in Germany's lower nobility rather than titles. WP articles are generally quite poor in differentiating between rank and title because in several languages often the same word is used for both or they have morphed into one another. Think of it like this: Although "earl" and "baron" are titles and ranks in the British nobility, "baronet" and "knight" are not -- rather, they are ranks within the non-noble gentry, that confer, by custom, the style of "Sir" upon men possessing those ranks. The difference is that "Ritter" and "Edler" (which I would translate as "Knight" and "Noble" in WP to avoid misleading readers into thinking they were part of the surname) were members of the hereditary nobility, whereas the British baronet and knight were not. But "Edler", "Noble" and "Herr" are not quite like (and rank above) the Dutch "Jonkheer" or the French "Ecuyer", which are styles (not titles or ranks) that could be assumed by any otherwise untitled nobleman: The closest German equivalent to these last two styles would be the use of "von" in the surname, except that the former always implies nobility in the Netherlands and (ancien régime) France, whereas the latter is a hint, not a proof. Gilbert von Studnitz is expert on this stuff. See http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/14c0a7dc87d347f9 Lethiere 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin congrat
Congrats! You now have the mop! -- Exir  Kamalabadi <font color="mediumseagreen">Join Esperanza! 11:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Monobook
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)

Wikipedia talk:Japan-related topics notice board/ToDo
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)


 * Thanks for the offer. You can see what happened by visiting this page and scrolling down. The edits in question are 2006-04-06 12:05:55 through 2006-04-06 12:08:55. Here's how I originally wanted to do it:
 * Japan-related topics notice board/ToDo → WikiProject Japan/ToDo


 * I think the easiest fix would be to just undo the five edits in question. That would then allow me to just fix it the way it was supposed to be. Does that make sense? --日本穣 Nihonjoe 19:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, and the consensus for this move has been reached before, where did the vote take place? Gryffindor  19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm...let's see where that page ended up...looks like here. Boy, this is really a mess. (^_^;;; --日本穣 Nihonjoe 19:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, so this was a technical glitch? You want to have the Japan-related topics notice board/ToDo moved to WikiProject Japan/ToDo, correct? Gryffindor  21:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not so much technical as me just not paying attention. I moved the talk page instead of the main page. Moving Japan-related topics notice board/ToDo to WikiProject Japan/ToDo is what I intended, so if you just delete the edits I listed above, then I can go in and fix things the way they were supposed to have been fixed in the first place. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Page has been moved. Is the result to your satisfaction? Gryffindor  21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you very much. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 22:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29

 * Hi there, Gryffindor. I am fine save for exam week at university. It's torturous! I'll give you a little bit of my insight here before I post at that discussion, which will be a bit later. I am going to mention German titles as well, since it may come up again and I feel it is a more pressing issue than the French, which I believe will be resolved quite easily.


 * I believe that English should be used if and whenever possible and that two languages should never, ever be mixed. For example, in the lower nobility of France and Germany nobles may be at (made up names) Jean, Comte de Bourgogne or Ludwig Graf von Altenberg. An example of the mixing I do not agree with is Prince Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst. I believe he should be at Chlodwig zu Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst or Chlodwig, Prince of Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst. The former is preferable as all others who held the office of prime minister have left the titles out of the names.


 * Titles derived from surnames should be kept fully in the native language and at the end of the name. Titles derived from places (Hohenlohe, etc) can be rendered in English, or with the original particle if no title is used (such as Prince Maximilian of Baden, but also Max von Baden).


 * Heads of families/houses should be treated in English with the form of "Name, Title of Designation". Royals should always have their titles translated to English. Dukes of Orleans, France, Counts of Paris, etc.


 * Consorts who otherwise fall under the minor nobility before marriage should have their names rendered in English if possible.


 * The only exceptions should be for people who are overwhelmingly referred to as something else, such as the duc de St-Simon and others. Charles 19:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sophie herself was *the* Duchess of Hohenberg, so if she was a consort, she would still be titled as such. Franz Ferdinand wasn't a sovereign, so in that aspect as well, I think Sophie would still be titled that way. Hohenlohe was a territory which became mediatized. Schillingsfürst was a name applied to one of the divisions of Hohenlohe when it was divided previously. It was the seat of literally, the Princes of Hohenlohe at Schillingsfürst (at becomes a hyphen).


 * Consorts to royals/nobles who weren't the heads of houses/territories should all just be put at their birth names for now. I believe it is current Wiki practice. I think we should try to fix the rules before applying fixes.


 * Crown princesses who never become grand duchesses/queens/empresses (such as Marie-Josèphe of Saxony) can be a tricky situation, as you mentioned. If they did not die with any sort of crown princely title (by remarriage, et cetera) then they obviously should not use it as an article title. The trick is when you do have crown princesses who died as such or who were widowed as such... I think the practice so far with all royals is to have them at the territorial designations they held at birth, with only consorts not using the title. I am really undecided. If the woman died as such, I can see reason for her being kept as such. But it doesn't seem strong enough right now. I would just put them at Title Name of Birth-designation. The mother of Karl I (really should be at Charles I) though never even was a crown princess, so she should stay where she is.


 * I read what has been said so far on the French titles. I agree that offices with no good English form should most certainly be kept in French. All other high and major nobles should utilise English, unless overwhlemingly referred to as such. Using a lowercase noble title when using French should be a given, with no exceptions. I don't agree with what was said about "Count van Hoorn" or "Duke de ... etc".


 * The exam I have tomorrow is German (written) and after the weekend I have physics, calculus, biology, German (oral) and psychology. Charles 20:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I fear my brain has just about hit its upper-threshold for learning! Right now is break time :-) Charles 20:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

tagging images
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 an AOL ISP and me in the process
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)


 * As I said on his userpage, it must have been an autoblock, since I did not block that IP. &mdash; Deckill e r 23:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

French noble titles
I have never been sure what your position on these matters is; the following propositions seem to be either true or guidelines, depending:
 * Most foreign titles do in fact have English versions: Duke of Anjou, Count of Angoulême.
 * When they do, the English wikipedia should use them, just as foreign wikipedias use ''roi d'Angleterre'
 * The easiest and surest way to find out what these English versions  are is to look up the person concerned in reliable English texts.
 * Scholarly sources often use the foreign style because the author has been reading French. If you find both Duke of Orleans and duc d'Orléans of the same man, we should use the first (and in this case we don't).
 * When (as with Captal de Buch), no English version exists, or it is patently both rare and artificial, we should attempt to be barbarous neither in French nor in English. Septentrionalis 22:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Old" image
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)
 * Hi Gryffindor, I just saw this cruising around on my last night before going off-line. For what it's worth, I inquired about a similar photo of a PD-Old painting from the German copyright guys and was told that there is no such thing as a copyrighted photo of a two -dimensional anything (in this case painting or graphic) if the object of the photo is in the PD (like this one almost has to be, it being from 1752).  Not sure how that works in enwiki or Poland, but I'd suspect copyright would be tough to defend on this photo based on what they told me at dewiki about this sort of thing.

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)
 * Yes, I said that also on my talk page. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] <b style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:navy; font-size:small;"> nath a  nrdotcom  ( T •  C  • W)</b> 18:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA
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)

A suggestion to sprotect.
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. :)


 * Special:Contributions/222.98.234.224
 * Special:Contributions/82.236.188.44
 * Special:Contributions/201.17.180.185
 * Special:Contributions/203.87.64.214
 * Special:Contributions/218.219.150.35
 * Special:Contributions/81.169.147.22
 * Special:Contributions/217.75.51.141
 * Special:Contributions/69.41.54.49
 * Special:Contributions/86.51.0.131
 * Special:Contributions/213.140.56.244
 * *NEW* Special:Contributions/85.92.129.202

They are mostly the same articles being hit repeatedly. This is just disgraceful and childish. —   <b style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:navy; font-size:small;"> nath  a  nrdotcom  ( T •  C  • W)</b> 14:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection
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)


 * I agree with what Antandrus said above. The vandal is targeting a series of articles, rather than just one, so it's problematic.  We systematically block the open proxies indefinitely.  The last few times, all the edits were being reverted quite rapidly, less than 60 seconds in most cases, and blocks were being done by three or four or five admins less than a minute apart.  So I guess we can cross our fingers and hope for the best.  Regarding the issue of whether a modern photograph of an out-of-copyright painting (or other old image) can itself be copyrighted, I'm not really sure... I've heard different opinions. -- Curps 15:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Gomperz, Laufer
Hello! I made Gomperz and Laufer article. can you expand? --Sheynhertz<font lang=yi size=2px color=mediumaquamarine>געשׁ״ך 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza User Page Award
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)
 * I would've volunteered for this if there was another way to do this besides manually. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] <b style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:navy; font-size:small;"> nath a  nrdotcom  ( T •  C  • W)</b> 04:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you mind doing this by Fri 14 March? Thanks. (^'-')^ Covington 04:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (new spammer)
 * S'okay. Glad to hear you're okay. Here's some stress-busting coffee. (^'-')^ Covington 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)



Poland related images
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 <sup style="color:green;">Talk 19:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Tnx for the reply. I think copying it to the image's talk page may be useful.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 16:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Caroline, Princess of Hanover
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)

Joska Fischer
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)

Happy Easter!
Please put all tasty Easter wishes here!



Austrian Emperors Francis Joseph and Charles
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)


 * Oh yes, they did go rather well. They were all in German. I see what you mean with Isabella and Juan Carlos, but I really think there is different treatment with Franco-Iberian sovereigns and Germanic ones. German is a rather "hard" language and frequently, if not most of the time, you will find sovereigns almost into the twentieth century being referred to with English exonyms for German given names. The case is strong for Karl I, with the results I posted on that page from books and scholarly papers, but also with his beatification site and the fact that his page used Charles anyway. Charles 16:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The naming is always interesting in that the type exposure given to them is so wide and varied. English/German usage is even for a while and then one trumps the other and vice-versa. Certainly, William II is just as correct as Wilhelm II is. There is no doubt about that. French and Spanish almost always translate such names. English, as the language of commerce and so on, pivots on the issue. Certainly, there is a case for Charles I of Austria, without question. The rest is almost even and in my opinion, for the sake of consistency, it should be discussed and weighed. I am hoping for Karl I to be moved to Charles I. I am not as optimistic for Francis Joseph. Charles 19:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey
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!--<font color="#FF6699">Violin  G <font color="9999FF">irl <font color="CC00FF">♪ 18:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job ...
... on the Marcel Prawy article! All the best, &lt;KF&gt; 22:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
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)

Spanish nobles
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)


 * The example you cite for Charles Mordaunt, 3rd Earl of Peterborough, 1st Earl of Monmouth is indicative of cases where we will be stuck with long article titles, *if* both titles are well known. These are rare and unavoidable. I agree 100% that untranslatable titles are best left as is so that a translation may be investigated. I believe that they should be left at the end though (purely for example, even though these can be translated: Karl Franz Graf von Berg but not Graf Karl Franz von Berg). Untranslated titles should always fall at the end of the name. I maintain Reichs- as a prefix to a title is not and should not be translated into English as Imperial Baron, etc. Pretend you have Karl Reichsgraf von X and Hans Reichsgraf von Y. Karl is Count of X and Hans is Count of Y. But together they are Barons of the (Holy Roman) Empire. The use of Imperial in English would be title inflation and most likely bothersome to a rank-conscious imperial family. Reich is best described as realm, I believe. But that's another discussion. BTW, I've always seen vom und zum Stein as vom Stein. Maybe Baron of Stein could be used? After all, we don't refer to members of the House of Liechtenstein as Princes and Princesses of and in Liechtenstein, even though we very well could if pressed to. For the purpose of brevity, do you think that's an option for the title? Baron vs Freiherr is at best a case by case issue... I think it should all go to the end of the name if untranslated (that is, treated as a surname). Starting a name with a non-English title is bad form in my eyes. Also, I think mixing English titles and German prepositions is bad as well. Mary Vetsera is under a name by which she is commonly called. I think it is fine. The only other options I see now are Mary Freiin von Vetsera or (ugh) Baroness Mary von Vetsera. Charles 19:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Mary, Baroness Vetsera or Baroness Mary Vetsera would not be awful at all... I was voicing that Baroness Mary von Vetsera would be an awful choice. But if Mary can be called a Baroness Vetsera, why can't Heinrich Friedrich Karl be called Baron Stein? Obviously, both of them had some version of von, etc in their name. Plus, most statesmen of the era seem to be referred to by a title then the name/territory, such as Prince Hohenlohe (really of Hohenlohe) or Prince Bismarck, etc. In general, titles which are derived from surnames should either have no preposition or should be left at the end of the name and in the native language. Or the title can be omitted and the particles could be left as is, if that person was known outside of being royal/noble. One of the sources used on the Stein page uses vom Stein. I would rather use Baron Stein than Baron of Stein anyway. Charles 19:48, 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
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 of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg
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)

Manuel Godoy
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)

Genji update
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 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 \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint) 20:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Concepción Heredia-Rosas
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)


 * Regarding the Spanish nobles, I am not surprised. I have a few people in mind who go around such articles and vote to oppose on little or no basis. But alas, that is the way of life, I suppose. The obscurity of some nobles is no excuse to use the relatively few instances of a foreign-language title when there are completely valid and accurate English versions. You'd laugh if you say one person's thoughts on Bourbon of Parma/Bourbon-Parma. He started to talk about Chinese crêpes. Charles 13:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Archduke/archduchess was not in official use before Maximilian I
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)


 * Yes, I was referring to Elisabeth of Austria (d. 1505), but if you have put "archduchess" also to any other biography of a medieval female Habsburg, the same applies. Have you??

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 ) 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)

Edit summaries
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)

Happy Birthday
Primat e <sup style="color:#6699CC;">#101  05:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did find it on Esperanza. That's why your bombarded with all this stuff! -- Primat e <sup style="color:#9966FF;">#101  02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Happy birthday, Gryffindor! &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  15:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)




 * Yes, your birthday was listed on the May calendar. :) Have a good one,  Sango 123   (e)  20:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy birthday! I hope you have a nice cake, or cake equivalent. RyanG e rbil10 20:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday!!! I hope it was awesomely stupendous!! -- Nataly a 23:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gryffindor
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)


 * I am fairly low-key and bashful about my confrontations with others. My problem is that when confronted, I tend to confront back. I fear that if I draw attention to it or participate in it further, it will continue and I'll end up making myself look like an idiot, if any of that made sense at all (and it probably didn't). I think I will come back now, but I need to start this vacation of sorts first. Chances are I'll keep checking my talk pages and I'll keep my email link active. I doubt I will do any editing though. Charles 14:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm new here.
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)

Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board
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)

Convention on nation articles
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
I replied on my page :-) Fantasy 10:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gryffindor
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)

Two misnamed royals
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)

Austrian nobility
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:

What do you think? Charles 20:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the table is rather long... Do you still think it would be possible to have single page dedicated to the nobles? Or possibly pages like Counts in Austria-Hungary or Counts of the Austrian Empire? I believe the chart format is rather user friendly, but the trade off is that it is rather long. It may be more encyclopedic to seperate the listing of nobles from the article about them in general, much like the rules of states are seperated from pages about ther monarchies they ruled. I think it would signifigantly cut down the length of the page. Each heading could have a note such as "for a listing of counts, see main page at..." or whatever form is deemed more suitable. After all, the pages about the British peerage, for instance, have seperate pages listing dukes, marquesses, earls, etc. Let me know. Charles 16:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it is rather hard to stay gender-neutral when dealing with a system that entirely preferred males. There have been plenty of female British peeresses, but they fall under the general lists of "Dukes", "Marquesses",... etc. I propose List of barons of Austria-Hungary, as you had indicated. I guess we don't need to use "baronial", "baronies" or comital. Since the different lines of Archdukes, Grand Dukes and Dukes number so few, should they stay in the main article? We need to figure out what to do with Edler/Edle and untitled families. List of untitled nobility in Austria-Hungary and Families titled Edler in Austria-Hungary? Charles 15:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Would List of knightly families of Austria-Hungary or List of knights of Austria-Hungary suffice for Ritter? I think Ritter does mean knight, but not "knight of" when speaking specifically of a family. Do you know what the plural of Ritter and Edler are? I'm only half way through the princely families and people who have been making additions have been making errors... Mixing up lines of families of different rank and mxing von and zu! Ah, a perfectionist's work is never done. Charles 17:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good, I'll play around with it. I'm putting List of princes of Austria-Hungary up right now. Charles 17:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I will put inuse tags up and fix them. Charles 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally feel it is fine, but it's not a big deal :-) I can put the prepositions before the family name, if you want, but I'll have to do it a bit later, as I am going out for supper. I finished weeding out which families were comital and which were princely... It was an absolute mess. Take a look at the princes and the counts. Charles 19:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC


 * That solution sounds fine. I would want to italicize the prepositions though... Such as von und zu Liechtenstein. Charles 19:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did a preview of including the preposition as in an original family name, but I think it looks bad. Can the preposition go first, then original name, then current name? Would that possibly be a compromise? I don't think there is a rush so long as the tags are up and all of the information is retained in the main article. Charles 20:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretenders Ernst August
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) 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)

Mary Vetsera
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)

Leopold V
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)

Maria Anna of Bavaria
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)


 * Okay, now I see Maria Anna is a disambig page. That complicates things. Charles 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wasn't Maria Anna of Bavaria (1551-1608) an archduchess-consort though, as the wife of a sovereign archduke? I'll just throw this out here. How about:


 * Duchess Maria Anna of Bavaria
 * Maria Anna of Bavaria (archduchess)
 * Maria Anna of Bavaria (empress)


 * To me, that would be fine. What do you think? It's easier on the eyes than dates. Charles 16:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (Just got the other message, I agree about Shilkanni).


 * How about Maria Anna of Bavaria, Duchess Maria Anna of Bavaria (archduchess) and Duchess Maria Anna of Bavaria (dauphiness)? Charles 16:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would describe places like Austria, Bavaria, etc as sovereign within the Holy Roman Empire and between each other (and, as you said, basically not at times). Even if they were not fully sovereign, I believe that they should be treated as it they were. Austria was a margraviate, then a duchy and finally an archduchy, which it remained up until 1804. The "Austrian Empire" is hard to define and may even be said to include the Archduchy of Austria and the Habsburg Hereditary Lands. When the Emperor of Austria declared himself so, he retained the title of Archduke. The use of title came into play later when Hungary came out from underneath the title of emperor and became the dual monarchy. Lesser titles do tend to be attached to the name rather than omitted in the case of sovereigns; however, I believe the consorts are treated the same as queens and empresses for the most part. Certainly, within the mediaeval and early renaissance eras, one did not need to rule a kingdom or an empire to be truly powerful. Archdukes sometimes used the archducal title over other titles such as king. I believe this is all important for the naming of consorts. For the purposes of naming them, wives of men who were the Archduke of Austria ought to use the format name of place. The date format seems to be the way to go, at least for Empress Maria Anna. Charles 17:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just reading up on the peculiarities of Brandenburg-Bayreuth today. I am not entirely convinced they were sovereign. Bayreuth wasn't a division of the Margraviate of Brandenburg as Bayreuth was in the Burgraviate of Nuremburg. As far as I can recall, the Margrave of Brandenburg was also the Burgrave of Nuremburg. I am under the impression that Brandenburg-Bayreuth was simply a name used by a junior line of the house who settled in Bayreuth, possibly as "viceroys" to the Margrave of Brandenburg, who retained all of the sovereign rights. It was very peculiar to hyphenate the name of a city in one territory to the name of another. I have to see if I can find what I was reading again. Charles 17:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, the article Margrave of Bayreuth (which is entirely misnamed) seems to explain the situation a bit. It seems to be like the case of Schaumburg-Lippe, where a junior prince of Lippe inherited the county of Schaumburg and used both names. Charles 17:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, now that is just stupid! Sofia Wittelsbach of Bavaria would at least be 1/10th convincing. Charles 00:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Valndalism of Arnold Schwarzenegger page
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)


 * To actually protect the page, you have to click the "protect" button at the top of the page, then "Block new and unregistered users", enter a reason, then click "confirm", then list the page at WP:PP. You only added the template, which looks like protection but doesn't actually do anything. I am not certain that the page needs protection, but it sure needs to be watched. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 23:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have some pages that receive A LOT of bad vandalism on my watchlist (Gay, for example), I might have a different threshold for what constitutes a reason for page protection. I think this case is in the area of your personal discretion whether to protect or not. Kusma (討論) 23:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. Gay was indeed out of hand, worse than I had thought. Kusma (討論) 23:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in new proposal to extend semi-protection: Here is an email of Jimbo to the mailing list. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 22:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that so far, Jimbo has only expressed support for applying semi-protection more liberally and for longer periods of time (possibly semi-permanently). That does not mean a change in policy yet, or even a change in most admin's protection habits, but it miht end up becoming just that. As not all of Jimbo's wishes or opinions become policy or even common usage, it is not yet clear what will happen; my prediction is that we'll have a less visible semiprotection tag for the long-time sprotected articles soon, and it will not be deleted again (as it was the last time it was introduced). Kusma (討論) 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: thank you
Takes all kinds, I guess. :) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 00:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
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)


 * I know my edits weren't vandalism. But by using rollback without the courtesy of an explanation, you were, in effect, calling them vandalism.  I find that rather annoying
 * I disagree with the guideline suggested by the WikiProject. Before imposing things on articles that you aren't otherwise involved in editing, you should give the editors involved in the articles the option to comment.  Guettarda 12:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Moves
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)
 * I most certainly will do. I can handle most things, but jeeze, this is too much ;-) Thanks Gryffindor! Charles 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Italian communes infoboxes
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

Commons
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)

Prince Radu of Hohenzollern-Veringen
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)

Polish medieval monarchs naming
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)

Better late than never
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)

Eleonore Gonzaga
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)

Royal moves
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)

Permission to use your template
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)

Hesse
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)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. Oh my, these prolific movers are indeed extremely irritating! I would support a limit on who can move articles, etc. It's just getting absolutely ridiculous. Best of luck with the new job! Charles 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For the sake of my amusement, tell me what you think of this piece of work: Wikiquette_alerts. Charles 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Hi Gryffindor;

Would you consider visiting Articles for deletion/Scottish pedigree of Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar and contributing? Thanks. Charles 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Officially" unhappy
Hello. Remember the country leads? The "officially" issue? I really dislike how all the countries have that "officially" preamble (again) &mdash;well, aside from the U.S, U.K., Israel, and other equales among firsts&mdash; 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)

Contd.
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)
 * Without me, though. Link? El_C 08:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting an edit war, that was tongue in cheek &mdash; I was suggesting me making the changes and you not reverting them. Unless you can produce this magical policy and  vote , just so I can actually review these. I'd realize you'd like to drop the issue, obviously, you're winning and I'm losing (another tongue in cheek, or is it?), but I feel you've circumvented the debate we've had, and frankly, I'm hurt and am prepared for drastic and potentially self-destructive action. Regards, El_C 08:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, it's likely that I've written more country leads than any other editor, possibly that counts for something. This is rather discouraging. Here I was, supporting your adminship when all along you've re-insreted that "officially" behind my figurative back. El_C 08:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You should know this guy is a snake.

Another "official" try
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:  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 &mdash; 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)

What can and cannot be cited as policy
I want to also focus on the misperception that I believe you were expressing, wherein: a. such disputes should be settled by a vote &mdash; 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)


 * Hi. Sorry, but I have to know that you read the above closely. Please confirm this. Another user has posed similar concerns that you misrepresented policy elsewhere. It is very important that you only cite existing policy as policy. Regards, El_C 19:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Final comment
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)

A short Esperanzial update
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 Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism
Dear Gryffindor! I have created 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)

Problems
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)

RfA thanks
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)

Fredericks of Hesse
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)

Freiherr
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)
 * Do you have on the matter though? There is a discussion on the talk page. Charles 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

New party logos
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? &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Free beer!
Not really .... Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: SilkTork 12:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Augusta Reuss
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)


 * The form Name, Title (of) Place (of/in/at)... implies some sort of sovereignty or marriage to the Count Reuss in my mind. I feel that Countess Augusta Reuss is another perfectly acceptable form, now that inclusion of the title has been brought up. Charles 19:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert of Saxony, Duke of Teschen
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)


 * The inscription may be wrong if it does exist... I will try to find out if any official proclaimation was made. Charles 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The equestrian statue outside the Albertina is of Archduke Albert (1817-1895), not Prince Albert of Saxony. Noel S McFerran 22:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Esperanza.Fhloston.jpg
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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)