User talk:Gryffindor/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not edit. This is an archive page.

Contents 1 Sock puppets 2 Esperanza 3 Reply: Imperial Crown of Brazil 4 image copyright question 5 Image deletions/Commons 6 Seal 7 Esperanza elections 8 Follow up to image copyright question 9 Orioane's RfA 10 Groß Österreich 11 News from Esperanza 12 Talk:United States of Greater Austria 13 Elisabeth of Bavaria 14 ☆ 15 = 16 welcome message 17 A New Wiki-Organization 18 Thank you! 19 Esperanza election 20 Esperanza elections 21 Esperanza Elections 22 Esperanza Elections 23 Use of tag "en" 24 Speedy deletion 25 Maud of Wales 26 You are welcome 27 Thanks 28 Thank you 29 Timeline details 30 192.45.72.27 31 3RR block 32 Adminship 33 RfA thanks from rogerd 34 Conventional shortform in country leads 35 Thank you! 36 My RfA 37 My RfB 38 Buganda 39 Your contributions to de.wikisource 40 Gemeinderat 41 Gryffindor 42 Graphic query 43 AfD Thanks 44 vote here 45 Admin coaching 46 Thank you for voting! 47 An Esperanzial note 48 Wikipediology Elections 49 Thank you 50 Re: the Austrian nobility 51 Marcel Prawy 52 Admin coaching begins 53 Esperanza 54 Wiener Zeitung 55 German titles 56 German wikipedians' noticeboard 57 Another Esperanzial note... 58 Austrian parties 59 Image 60 Image Tagging Image:Mappa Due Sicilie.PNG 61 Vandals and trolls

[edit] Sock puppets

Hi, it seems I get to be the first to post to the talk page after the archiving.

I just wanted to bring this to your attention WP:ANI#CDThieme_sockpuppetry since you have had dealings with some of those accounts. Although I had suspicions about some of them, I was shocked to see the extent of the problem. Stefán Ingi 03:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should probably allow him to wote once, but if he is only allowed to do that then the votes of the two of us are enough. I was more referring to the votes on Weißenburg in Bayern and Franz Josef Strauß where he voted six times in both cases. Stefán Ingi 13:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked the counts yesterday and was quite tired so I could be wrong but I think that without his multiple votes it is something like 11/9 at Weißenburg and 13/10 at Strauß. Technically that means slightly more than 60% for Strauß and slightly less than 60% at Weißenburg. Still, I would suggest trying to calm emotions in this and wait, it's not a terribly large issue. There is interesting discussion of the history of the behaviour at the link to the WP:ANI I gave at the beginning. The whole show unravelled at User_talk:David_Gerard#Sortan, only because he was so uncareful to create the impostor User:Jguk. of User:Jguk (note the dot). CDThieme and Jguk have been arguing in the AD/BC CE/BCE matter. Stefán Ingi 14:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

cheers, I knew you would understand. Did he ruin any of your votings as well? I think with Nidhogg he tried didn't he? Gryffindor 19:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

He's done this sad sock thing in a number of votes I've participated in - including Talk:Lóðurr, Talk:Höðr, Talk:Níðhöggr and Talk:Balder. Of those I think Talk:Balder is the only one where he got his way. He also voted a number of times against the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) and then revert-warred when we tried to put a "guideline" tag on it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This is really unfortunate. Did he influence the voting of Balder in such a way that it got ruined? or were there not enough votes in any case..? Gryffindor 19:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure, I think he "only" voted twice there. Could you look at that vote and tell me what you think? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you, the users (if this all turns out to be true) seems to have voted twice. Gryffindor 20:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard is careful with these things and it's based on IP numbers so it's true beyond reasonable doubt. I see that there's a strong desire among people not to let him get away with this so maybe we'll address Baldr. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza

Morning (for me) Gryffindor,

I was wondering how I could go about joining Esperanza. Thanks, gotta go...Prsgoddess187 12:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply: Imperial Crown of Brazil

Dear Gryffindor,

I'd like to thank you for your suggestions regarding the article I wrote on the Imperial Crown of Brazil.

I have taken your advice and renamed the article.

I have also added tags to the images (the rationale for fair use I had already provided). As for your other comments, rest assured that I wrote the article myself (taking care to provide accurate information, of course).

[edit] image copyright question

Can you take a look at this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rebbe_1928_berlin.jpg The image before it was cropped is from http://www.mentalblog.com/hello/271/1249/1024/11-25-2004%208-44-49%20PM_0000.jpg which clearly appears as if it is from a book. If so it may have copyright problems. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletions/Commons

Hi there. I very vaguely remember being asked in IRC to delete that image because it was now on Commons; I don't retain IRC logs to prove that fact. Anyway, yes, if an image on Commons has the exact same name as the former-image on Wikipedia, it will magically replace it. There's no need to update article links or anything, the server is clever enough to work that out. That being the case, there's no need to upload images to both wiki and Commons. Provided you own the copyright to Image:Krone Kaiser Rudolf II Kaisertum Österreich.jpg and are able to make that GFDL licence (or another free licence) then yes, the local copy could be deleted without harm to anything. If it's a fair use image or otherwise unfree, then it shouldn't be on Commons at all. I note that you didn't add the GFDL tag: are you sure it's a GFDL image? It might have been taken from the German wikipedia: if it was, then the attribution history needs to be imported from there.

The complication with moving things to Commons is that the GFDL insists we retain the authorship history, of both the image and the image page. This is why, oftentimes, things are not deleted from enwiki even though they are on Commons too since it's too much hassle to carefully move every revision to Commons with the correct authorship attribution etc. If the only uploader and substantive editor of the image page is you, then it can be deleted at your request. -Splash^talk 17:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seal

Hi! Sorry, it was an oversight on my part. It is the seal of Chhattisgarh, I had incorrectly labelled it while bulk uploading. Chhattisgarh is spelled in Devanagiri on the seal. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

PS. If you want to hyperlink to an image, use the following syntax: [[:image:Chhattisgarhseal.png]]. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza elections

[edit] Follow up to image copyright question

I have posted the following message on the image page on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rebbe_1928_berlin.jpg "Original picture is from http://www.mentalblog.com/hello/271/1249/1024/11-25-2004%208-44-49%20PM_0000.jpg which is from the book Larger than life: The life and times of the Lubavitcher Rebbe Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson by Shaul Shimon Deutsch" Is that enough? --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orioane's RfA

Your comments would be welcome at Prime Minister. One user, without even bothering to go through the proper procedures, wants to rename the article Prime minister and keeps moving it to push that version!!! While there is an article for all uppercasing or all lowercasing, half-casing (which is all WP allows, as all lowercasing is not possible in article titles) would produce a semi-literate mess that would make WP a laughing stock. A student who writes the title that way in an essay earns an instant fail because it is seen as such a monumental clanger. With all the attacks WP is under right now, the last thing WP needs is to make it look as though it does not know how to write the title of the office of premier correctly. What next? Lord mayor? lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Groß Österreich

I'm 99% sure the correct translation is Greater Austria (e.g., besides Greater Serbia, would be the at one time proposed Greater German Reich), although I must admit that I never heard about that before. I think it comes from the different connotations in German and English regarding groß/great. Cheers. Lectonar 10:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] News from Esperanza

Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Wikipedia:Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.

[edit] Talk:United States of Greater Austria

Looks like I was a little late to the party, and it was decided that greater was the more correct term. It sounds right to me, but I have to confess that the differences between great and greater in regards to the naming of countries seems a fine line indeed. Somehow it sounds more correct to say greater. Isn't that strange how that works? I'm always trying to verify grammar rules when talking with my German friends, and why, exactly, things are said the way they are and it's always, "Because it sounds better that way". And then I turn around and say that to them when they ask me the same thing. lol -Maaya 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elisabeth of Bavaria

Sie sind aus Österreich stammend, oder? Wir haben ein, um, rege Diskussion bei dem Elisabeth of Bavaria Artikel, besonders wie Ihr name sollte. Vielleicht Sie können uns helfen? Ich denke es sollten nicht Elisabeth in Bavaria werden, aber das Elisabeth of Bavaria ist besser, oder Elisabeth (Austria-Hungary) wie in der deutsche wiki. Aber auch wenn Sie nicht mit mir überein, eine andere Ansicht würde sehr nützlich sind. (Ich schreibe auf Deutsch weil ich bin in dem Bestreben zu verbessern. Ich habe ein Prüfung am nächsten Monat!) -Maaya 23:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ☆

こんにちは! I ☆ed on you head page! Are you Jewish Austrian? Why don't you log in as ja:User:Gryffindor --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 12:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] =

A vote has been called to rename Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia to Aleksandar Karađorđević. The renamers have at least stopped constant unilateral renaming (at last!). Please come, express your opinion and vote. Slán. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is the link to that vote? In typical wikipedian (i.e. anal retentive) spirit, I say keep 'em both and link 'em.--The Gnome 11:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] welcome message

Yeah, I came across your welcome thingy on User talk:Stavos. You're right... why does the welcome message have to be so bland? You'rs is much better, and Ima borrow it... can it be made into a template? That'd be easier... Herostratus 03:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A New Wiki-Organization

Hi, my name is Wikizach. I have started a new group, Wikipedia: Representatives. Please Come on by and check it out!Wikipedia: Representatives

PS: Join, and become a member!

Wikizach 16:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

[edit] Esperanza election

[edit] Esperanza elections

Thanks for voting for me in the Esperanza elections. I've been appointed to the Advisory Committee, thanks to your show of confidence in me. I'll do my best to make you proud, but please feel free to ask me for help at any time or to give me tips as to what you would like to do. Thanks for being an active member of Esperanza! I'll see you around. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Elections

Thank you for your vote! Please let me know if I can help you as an advisory council member in the future. karmafist 01:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Elections

Hi mate,

You may remember the war on styles that was waged some time ago and the eventual compromise reached which meant that styles (Holiness, Majesty, Royal Highness, etc) are no longer used in royalty articles. A series of templates were created to enable users to warn other users who attempt to reinsert styles into articles that that is no longer WP policy. However a user who is trying to get a whole series of templates deleted has nominated them on the WP:TFD for deletion. I am thoroughly fed up having to defend necessary templates from the minority of deletion police on WP who seem to act as a group: one nominates, then the rest all vote to agree with them. All help to defend the necessary templates in the styles series gratefully received. Thanks. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of tag "en"

Hi, Gryffindor. I came across an edit of yours that i don't understand. In a change made on November the 24th 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Die_Zauberfl%C3%B6te&diff=29141882&oldid=29137939) you added square brackets around the language identifier "en".

The wikipedia article for "en" is a disambiguation page. I take it you didn't mean to link to it.

Did you instead mean for the link to look like this: [[English language|en]]

en

or maybe intend for it not to be a link at all: <nowiki>[[en]]</nowiki>

[[en]]

--Netizen 18:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

Hello, in future please put {{d}} or {{db}} on the page you want deleted - not the talk page. Thank you, r3m0t ^talk 02:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maud of Wales

Morning,

I was wondering if I could get your support on moving Maud of the United Kingdom back to Maud of Wales. Since she married Prince Carl of Denmark prior to her father's accession, she should be at her proper per-marital name.

Thanks, Prsgoddess187 13:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, no major rush on it. She was the daughter of Edward VII, but married Haakon VII of Norway (when he was still Prince Carl of Denmark) prior to her father taking the throne. So her pre-marital name, as fitting a queen consort, should be at Maud of Wales. Makes sense, right? Prsgoddess187 16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC) PS - Hope you had a good vacation...

Yes, technically she was a Princess of the United Kingdom, but married while she was Princess Maud of Wales. As a queen consort, her proper place is Maud of Wales, like her cousins Marie of Edinburgh, Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg, and Sophia/Sophie of Prussia. Prsgoddess187 16:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that a queen consort goes back to maiden name, without a title (Mary of Teck and Alexandra of Denmark, were both princesses and queen consorts). Thanks for the support. I am pretty sure that none of the other princesses you listed became queens. Prsgoddess187 17:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, I always like to have the facts straight too. Thanks for the support. Prsgoddess187 17:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are welcome

Thank you. By the way I enjoyed looking at your gallery.--Dakota ~ ε 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The ones on commons [1] my page on commons [2] not much there yet.--Dakota ~ ε 17:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

[edit] Thank you

[edit] Timeline details

Hi there! Happy new year to you too. Regarding your query, I'm only 1 for 2:

• I was able to change the colour of the left bar to a wine-/brick-red. Consult the metadata in the page for one possible format, rgb: different colours can be rendered with decimal values (convert from the list of colours) – e.g., red would be 1,0,0; black would be 0,0,0, etc.
• However, I can find or know of no way to list and wikify items on the same line (as you wish), only vertically ... with the effect of text crashing. (That doesn't mean another way doesn't exist, but I don't see it.) The only other way I could think of is to add colums in between the two colour bars and try to list those politicians alongside one another in the separate columns (in cells on the same line).

You can find pointers regarding format, etc. at the Wikimedia site regarding the EasyTimeline utility.

I'm sorry I couldn't be any more help. Let me know if you need more assistance. Take care! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 192.45.72.27

I'm not one-hundred percent sure on this, but I think that since the reverting was done by three different users (Pgk, you, and me, I don't think it violates 3RR. To double check, you might want to ask Pgk, who just became an admin and would have a better idea on this than me. But that's my take on it. (Although, from the looks on this page, you did a good job.) Oh, and nice to "meet" you!--ViolinGirl^♪ 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Understand. Thank you, also, for your kind words (re:adminship). I'm in admin coaching right now, and maybe I'll become an admin sometime, although RL is always more important...(or, that's what I keep trying to tell myself! ;) ) Again, nice "meeting" you and see you around!--ViolinGirl^♪ 00:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I know it looks like I've been giving you like what, 20 messages? But I keep making mistakes with THIS USER'S username (!!!)....so, anyway, sorry about that. The End. :) --ViolinGirl^♪ 00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my mistake (re:Pkg and Pgk). Unfortunately, whenever I see pgk I automattically think the word "package", so when typing it, I spell it "PKG" instead of "PGK". Anyway...I joined Esperanza too late to vote...although I tried to vote for Sango before I realized it. I would have joined sooner, but didn't realize you only had to have X number of edits instead of XX number, so...And sorry, for the admin coaching, you missed out on the two best coaches... ;) See you around...--ViolinGirl^♪ 13:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk about confusing!! I'm not sure I've got it yet, because if you scroll up in my talk page, Banes was saying it was okay...anyway, I was glad to "stand up" for you, although I think Alai was friendly enough as we were discussing it.

And, I'm doing fine, thanks for asking, although RL is sometimes stressful, trying to fit everything in. You?--ViolinGirl^♪ 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Alai 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Why am I getting blocked out of the blue if I receive no previous warnings? Gryffindor 19:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Replied here, to avoid fragmenting discussion across three different talk pages. Alai 19:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you blocked Gryffindor for a violation of 3RR. Did you look into that? I have my doubts about the validity of the claim. (Perhaps Gryffindor was just reverting POV? Not positive, since I myself haven't looked in to it totally, but the comment here was made by Jamesbozen (talk · contribs), who, while I'm not saying is a bad user, I don't know yet, and looks to be a newbie?) No rush on replying, I'm just curious. Have a nice day! Cheers!--ViolinGirl^♪ 13:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Alai, yes I do have to wonder about that as well. I thought I made my actions pretty clear in my comments of the histories when reverting, such as South Tyrol, Trentino-South Tyrol, Italy and Bozen-Bolzano. I kept on reverting the edits by the anon users, however got tired of it therefore I tried to get the opinions of other users, see [3], [4], [5], [6], as well as leaving numerous warnings on the talk page of anon [7]. I also reported the case on the Wikiquette alerts [8]. Since the users kept on doing it, I decided to report at least one case. I also pointed out to the other cases in my report [9]. I'm really not sure what else I needed to have done in order to avoid getting blocked myself. I appreciate and thank you for your help in blocking anon and defending me. Maybe you could be so kind as to point out to me what was done wrong and how it can be avoided in future, because I find it unjustified to block me as well. I received no warning of impending breach of rules, which would have sufficed I think. with kind regards Gryffindor 19:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Violingirl, what doubts about validity do you have, exactly? "Reverting POV" isn't an exception to the 3RR, and I don't think the reverts were simply of vandalism as such. (They don't look like good edits to me either, mind you.)

Gryffindor, my suggestion on not getting blocked for the 3RR is simple: don't revert so often! Wait and see if someone else reverts the changes: if they're as bad as you think, surely they will. By all means contact other people, or noticeboards, etc, but those are intended to be alternatives to serial reverting, not simply prerequisites to doing so. Please note that the 3RR applies per 24 hours, not per calendar day, as your own numbering of your reverts seems to reckon it. If you'd misunderstood that, I have even more sympathy for you, which I have rather a lot of in any case, as I'm sure your edits were in good faith. But none the less they were indeed reverts, and an excessive number of them at that, and I felt it wouldn't have been supportable to block one party and not the other, when both are equally guilty at least in technical terms. I'd probably have lifted your block early on the basis of the checkuser results, since the sockpuppetry at work here seems to have been a large part of what provoked you into breaking the rule, but unfortunately I wasn't online much yesterday (pesky broadband regime has left me in the lurch again). Alai 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I didn't warn first as firstly, it's not a requirement; secondly, as I assumed that if you were familiar enough with the rule to file 3RR violation reports against others, you'd be familiar enough to avoid infringing against it yourself; and lastly and most importantly, so as to deal as equitably and impartially as possible between two parties guilty of essentially the same "offence", regardless of any personal opinions or sympathies I might have on the matter. Note also that if you disagree with a block, you're free to email the blocking admin, and in any case, you're free to admin your own talk page even while blocked, so you can make whatever commentary you wish there. In any case, glad you're back, all the best. Alai 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh lord this is so confusing to me. Ok, because my understanding was you need to warn someone about the reverts, that's why I was warning the anon. user. Considering that user was probably using multiple account (if I may dare say so), I was only able to warn one address, not the others. you are right about the one day/24 hour thing, I must have gotten that one confused. Ok, so am I getting this right: next time, see how many reverts have been done in 24 hours, not one day (meaning from morning till evening), and inform other users first about the going on's. see if they think it needs to be reverted, or let others do them. But I thought that reverts by other users do not count towards the limit on the three-revert-rule, only if I do the reverts do they count. Is that correct, or it does not matter which users do the revert? IMO the changes done constituted vandalism, because whole sections of the article were simply being sliced away (see South Tyrol), it wasn't just about names. Please correct me if I'm wrong or forgot something, thanks. Gryffindor 20:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning's a very good idea, and I entirely applaud you for having done so, it's just not part of the blocking policy as such. I may have been somewhat severe in my assumption that if you warned and reported someone else, you were fully aware and didn't need to be warned myself, but at any rate such was my thinking at the time. The rule is: no more than three reverts per person, per article. Reverts by others don't count, reverts by sockpuppets do. (So ideally your antagonist would have been blocked sooner, and more thoroughly, but hopefully this is resolved now at any rate, if a little later than would have been ideal.) I didn't notice any other "vandalistic" changes at the time, nor any reports that they were such. Looking back I can see half of paragraph was being removed from Trentino-South_Tyrol (but nothing similar on South Tyrol) though that's not necessarily "blanking vandalism", or at any rate, isn't clear-cut as such. As other people were indeed making reversions sim8ilar to your own, all the more reason to stop when you reach your own "limit". Of course, even better to resolve the dispute otherwise, without "using the reverts"! (Though I admit this seems unlikely to have been possible here.) Alai 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, gotcha. So in case something like this happens again, can I ask you for your opinion so that everything is legit? This was really my first time reverting such a user and using the reverts policy. Gryffindor 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely welcome to, certainly. Alai 23:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still slightly confused...So, if it's a case of POV, don't revert more than once(?), but if it's vandalism, then you can revert however many times the vandal vandalizes. :) Right? (And, thanks for being patient explaining this to me!) --ViolinGirl^♪ 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you can in principle revert POV, or anything else you think needs to be reverted, up to the maximum number of times (i.e. 3). I'm just offering the commentary that reverting may not be the best action to take, esp. repeatedly, as it'll often just lead to further retaliation in kind. But on vandalism, yes, however many times however many vandals vandalise. :) And, you're welcome! Alai 00:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, got it, this time! Thanks for helping. --ViolinGirl^♪ 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, merci beaucoup. Gryffindor 13:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Say - why exactly aren't you already an admin? —Nightstallion (?) 08:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

<ignore sockpuppet> On a different note, what's the proper procedure for a vote that's being swamped by sockpuppets? —Nightstallion (?) 08:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Mud-miner, anon, cease the egregious baiting and taunting. NS, see Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser if you need for this to be formally established, though if a vote is clearly being swamped in that manner, the "votes" will simply be disregarded by the closing admin or bureaucrat. Alai 09:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I've posted a request there, as well as at the admin noticeboard. —Nightstallion (?) 09:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from rogerd

[edit] Conventional shortform in country leads

Hi. I think it's alright to occasionally add, "or [shortform]," to a country lead, but that this officially standardization reads more poorly than simply starting off with the formal name. I am open to persuasion, but for the moment, I tentatively object to these changes being implemented acorss many country articles without a central discussion being facilitated. Therefore, I am undoing your changes. For convinience, I'm using the rollback button; if we come to an agreement I could re-rollback, some, or all, of these changes — or if you're an admin, you could do so, but I'd like to get some further input on these changes (hopefuly, other people will wish to participate). Thanks in advance for understanding. Regards, El_C 16:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks for supporting me on my Rfa, Gryffindor! I appreciate your trust, and for wishing me "good luck". The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

I don't have a fancy layout like other new admins, but I just want to thank you for your support at my RfA. It passed 48/3/1, so I have officially been promoted. I hope I won't let you down. If I'm not doing something properly, please tell me. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfB

Hi, Gryffidor. I'm just dropping you this message to thank you, very much, for your so very kind words and support in my RfB. It's been delisted as unsuccessful, but that doesn't changes how appreciative I am for your support. I remain, as always, at your disposal should you need my help. Thank you so much, again. Redux 21:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your words, again. Yes, I received a lot of support (maybe it could have been more, but RfB is all the way at the bottom of the page, so some people end up missing it). And almost all the opposition was based on that automatic "we don't need more Bureaucrats" notion. Most of the users who either opposed or remained neutral actually told me that they thought that I was actually a good candidate. And thank you for the coffee too! Looks great! Your friend, Redux 22:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buganda

Hello. You marked Buganda as a stub, but I reckon it isn't a stub. However, it needs to be expanded, so an "expand" tag is probably more appropriate. Wouldn't you agree? . --Ezeu 22:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your contributions to de.wikisource

Hello Gryffindor. Thank you for the contributions. Unfortunately you didn't add your sources. Since the letters and poems are public domain anyway, it doesn't matter if you got them from a book or a website. So could you please add them or tell me where you've got the texts from? Thanks Jofi 23:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hallo nochmal. Die Texte sind natürlich Public Domain (es handelt sich ja auch nicht um Übersetzungen). Die Quellenangaben sind nur erwünscht, um in Zweifelsfällen auf die Quelle zurückgreifen zu können. Gruß Jofi 18:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gemeinderat

"Municipal council". 66.238.96.53 11:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, in case you don't already know it the Leo dictionary is useful - there's a forum for discussing how best to translate words or check your own ideas. I have no idea about Austrian politics myself :-) Saint|swithin 21:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gryffindor

You may be interested in this page. Thought I'd let you know. Cheers!--ViolinGirl^♪ 22:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I corrected it for you. :) Cheers!--ViolinGirl^♪ 16:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an RfA running now? I'd be happy to vote for you, so let me know when/if you have on going, okay? Yeah, you had a tough time of the 3RR, but I don't think it was your fault, really. Anyway, as I said, I'm not leaving leaving...still be doing some minor edits here and there, so I will be seeing you around. Thanks for understanding. Cheers!--ViolinGirl^♪ 16:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)`

Best wishes to you, then. Hope you get Sango123 and Banes...they are excellent coaches. Keep in touch...--ViolinGirl^♪ 16:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graphic query

Hi there! I've been swamped, so forgive my delay in replying to you (ditto for your e-mail). I have to research your inquiry, but I'll get back to you in a few days. OK? Stay tuned! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Thanks

[edit] vote here

Vote here "keep" : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Regards, M.deSousa 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Article was speedily deleted. Sango123 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin coaching

Hi, Gryffindor! According to this, Banes and I are now your admin coaches! :) For AC meetings, would you prefer to meet on #wikipedia-esperanza, this talk page, or a user subpage of yours? And when would you like to start? Cheers, Sango123 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your coaches are excited to start as well! ;) Our tactics involve looking through your contributions (checking edit summaries, seeing if there's a proportional distribution of edits between namespaces, etc.), setting up "What would you do in this situation?" scenarios (Goo and Foo are in an edit war, and you, as an admin, have been asked to intervene...), and having fun along the way. We're always open to suggestions and criticisms though. ;) Your RfC subpage sounds perfectly fine, but since you mentioned that #wikipedia-esperanza doesn't work, may I ask if you have an IRC client installed (for Internet Relay Chat)? Regards, Sango123 (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to use IRC to become an admin, but it's nice in the sense that it offers instant communication (take a look at the screenshot in the article ChatZilla to see the Wikipedia IRC channel). It's probably more appropriate to use a subpage for coaching since that allows you to respond in a more thorough, thought-out manner. Would it be okay to use User:Gryffindor/AdminCoaching instead? It's up to you, but either way, I think we'll start with a scenario. :) (And yes, "sysop" is the same thing as "admin".) Regards, Sango123 (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for voting!

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Esperanzial note

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

[edit] Wikipediology Elections

Voting for the positon of Regent Ñ will begin on February 5th at the voting page. All candidates should list themselves there before then. Please take the time to vote, and become more active in the Wikipediology Institute. Thanks - Pureblade | ^Θ 04:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

For your kind support of my Rfa, which passed. If you should ever have any complaints about my admin actions, please let me know. Also, should you ever need my help with anything, please do not hesitate to ask! Thanks again! All the best Banez 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I hope to start coaching soon!

[edit] Re: the Austrian nobility

The practice with nobles has always been to translate their titles and and prepositions into English in English writings... To not do so is sloppy. The only notable, but still disagreeable, exception is the French language, where one alternatively refers to someone such as the Comte de Paris as that or as the Count of Paris (but never the Comte of Paris or the Count de Paris]]. To present Austrian noble families with such articles not preceded by the title is sloppy and wrong. Again, here is another exception though: When there is no title or the family does not hold pretense to a title, the von may be used as there isn't a German or English title to match the preposition. The prepositions are indeed translatable into English, and are translatable as a fact of having several families with de and et with von and und noted. Von becomes of, zu alone becomes of, sometimes in (when following a main name, such as von X zu Y (of X in Y). Von und zu becomes of and in. This is what my family is. So, Paul von Hindenburg is fine as is, however, if he were a prince and used that title officially, he would be Prince Paul of Hindenburg. On another note, presenting the "current" names of those families is rather presumptuous in that many of them live elsewhere and do not follow Austro-republican convention. Since the article includes the historic families, it ought to have the historic names presented. Remember, many of the families still in Austria use the prepositions socially and grudgingly go along with Austro-republican convention for legal matters. I am going to removed the first prepositions. I will keep the intermediary ones for now. I appreciate that you came to my page to talk to this. Let's see if we can strike some middle ground. Charles 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with using both articles is that it becomes increasingly messy. The English articles alone settle that situation. Regarding the contemporary members of these noble families: Yes, the ones still in Austria would not use any prepositions, etc. But the historical instances of notable nobles greatly outnumbers those who are legally now commoners. I believe that if such people do show up on Wikipedia, they should be dealt with as such on their own pages (such as Archduke Charles of Austria, called Karl Habsburg-Lothringen). I think it should only be noted that the families in Austria no longer use the prepositions in Austria and that it shouldn't be noted beside every single name. If anything, it should be noted on a seperate page if a page for that family exists. As for "Pauline Princesse de Metternich", I cannot comment on that as the page is extremely inconsistent. I think the main Austrian nobility page should note prepositions used in Hungary, etc, and note those examples with the explaination, but not in a mess of brackets and notes with the listings of families. Footnotes would probably be even better. Charles 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am just as concerned with the content... I've been pouring over some of my resources to better assess the standings of some of the families. If I had it my way, all of the extinct families would be removed. I'm sure the lists aren't totally exhaustive anyway. I think it should be trimmed back to the Archdukes, Grand Dukes, Dukes and Princes with mention of some of the more wellknown noble families. The list gives the impression of a copy-paste job or a compilation of Madonna's hit singles rather than a clean, basic list. As for the Rothschilds and the Metternichs, the de used in France proves that von can at least be translated into French. Same for English. Harnoncourt, on the other hand, has a sloppy formal name. I'll have to dig to see if it's correct. I'm okay with the intermediary articles as is, but I still think it would be better to use English articles and note the usage on the respective page for each family (if applicable). On another note, I have done some work on the titles and the manners of address --- it's still rather rough. Charles 01:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Madonna reference was an exaggeration of the sheer abundance of families. I hadn't said that de was interchangeable with from. Indeed, it is, but that is another case. Non-nobles with de/von used it in the from sense. Of is the sense used by nobles. I think that we can make a list as a seperate page but mention prominent families (Esterhazy, Rothschild, Kinksy) on the main page. When I said there was a French exception, it was only for totally intact titles, that is a title such as Duc de X or Comte de Y. The title and the preposition are both in French. A line my family uses von der. Indeed, it means of the and in French is de la or du. A note though is that der can introduce a noun and thus isn't said as the in English. Zu alone in a primary title means of. Thus, Chlodwig Fürst zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst is Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst. Von der can become just of depending on what follows it. A pseudo-example is Lippe. One can be a Prinz zur Lippe (Prince of the Lippe, Prince de la Lippe in French) or a Prinz zur Lippe-Biesterfeld (Prince of Lippe-Biesterfeld, Prince de la Lippe-Biesterfeld). A Reichsfreiherr is never called an imperial baron... It is understood as being a Baron of the Holy Roman Empire. Charles 03:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Google is that obscure families only tend to be mentioned from sources that a possibly misinformed author stumbles upon and then repeats. It certainly doesn't make it correct. "Czernin von und zu Chudenitz" is "Czernin of an in Chudenitz" in formal, said as "Czernin of Chudenitz". Would someone who speaks English always use the "von und zu" or just say the "of"? The thing with titles and prepositions is that when using both with no forename, it should be introduced with "the". The people who use "zu "are either Germans or those who don't understand that it can be simply said as "of Hohenle". The family name is not being falsified. These are titles, not family names. Should Frederick William always be called the koenig von Preussen in English? Or the king von Prussia? The same holds true for noble titles... They can be properly translated if attention is paid to the idea behind the title. "De la Fontaine und d´Harnoncourt-Unverzagt" is simply "of Fontaine and Harnoncourt-Unverzagt". It's that simple, really. "Edler Herren und Edle Herrinen" comes from German nobles that I know and have discussed the matter with. I have seen the possibilities of the title listed in print so it takes understanding and intuition to give an idea of the English meaning. If someone comes up with a more precise explaination, it can always be changed to fit. Herr Graf, etc, are styles that existed in Germanic countries. Edler Herr and Edle Herrin are understood only to be courtesy titles, not true titles of nobility... It is along the same lines as Ritter. The only difference is that "edle(e) von" was put in front of what was a family name. The wife of a ritter was called a frauen. It was a courtesy applied to such ladies. Shortcutting to Imperial Baron is simply not good... Those educated in nobility and those who are noble never do that... And that is the right way. A group of Reichsfreiherren were collectively called Barons of the (Holy Roman) Empire, but each one was individually "baron of X", etc. If that translation is going to be made strictly, reich is closer to Realm than to Imperial. Congratulations though, you were successful in finding one of EB's sloppier articles. They do pop up from time to time. They should have kept it as Reichsfreiherr vom und zum Stein. The Neuhardenberg page is typical of ill-carried out translation from German to English. Listings for Baron of the Empire number nearly as much as Imperial Baron, which lists many models of cars and gay "royal courts. Charles 20:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Charles, are you actually trying to say that in English we always translate titles? That's ridiculous. We talk about "Baron vom Stein," not "the Baron of Stein". We talk about "Prince Otto von Bismarck" not "Prince Otto of Bismarck". Sometimes we might say "Baron Stein" or "Prince Bismarck," but in neither case is "of" actually used. Your Czernin example is particularly bizarre. I've never seen any source referring to him as "Count Czernin of Chudenitz" or "Count Czernin of and in Chudenitz." In informal contexts, he will simply be called "Count Czernin." In formal contexts, the German title is pretty much always given untranslated, or else as "Count Czernin von und zu Chudenitz." You may think this is inelegant, or inconsistent, or whatever, but it is nevertheless true. You are basically demanding that we use name forms which are never actually used in English. Until you can provide a citation to show that "Czernin of and in Chudenitz" has actually been used in major English sources, I don't see why we should give any deference to this viewpoint at all - Gryffindor has already shown that many sources simply give the untranslated title. john k 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marcel Prawy

Hi Gryffindor, I proofread and edited the article on Marcel Prawy. I've translated several articles now but this is my first edit and I'm not sure that I did it the way you're perhaps used to. What I did was to just edit on the page, figuring you can compare to the previous version to see what I changed. It's a very nice article. Funny thing is, I remember seeing him on TV sometimes when I was growing up in Germany. -- One more thing: I noticed when comparing your translation to the German language article that the link on the German page doesn't seem to work. I replaced it with the one you placed onto your English page.  :) --Mmounties 04:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin coaching begins

Hi, Gryffindor! User:Gryffindor/AdminCoaching is no longer a red link, so please add it to your watchlist and take a look! :) Thanks, Sango123 (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, got your message, give me moment, ok?-) Gryffindor 17:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza

Thanks for the welcome. Sorry I missed the links. Yes, I'm still a bloody beginner at this Wiki thing, but I'm catching on quickly. My son got me into it. ... and there is so much to do! I'll make sure I look more for linking going forward. Hadn't seen the Esperanza page before. I'll check it out. Thanks again. (By the way, aside from everyone trying to reduce the huge backlog, I think the reason why you don't hear from proof-readers much is that you really write well.) And thanks for the offer to help. I'll drop you a line whenever I need it. Salü! Das isch Schwitzer Dütsch, I weiβ. What do Austrians say? G'pfürr' Di! like the Bavarians? I don't know. --Mmounties 15:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I put my reply to that last one on your RfC page.  :) --Mmounties 16:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiener Zeitung

Hi again. I took a look at the Wiener Zeitung. I changed things around a little and inserted some expressions that perhaps you didn't know. I tripped a little over "publicly owned". I know how the word "public" is used in the German language as compared to the English language and I believe, looking at the German text, you meant here that the paper was owned by the government. Publicly owned in English (at least American English) usually means ownership like Aktiengesellschaft where shares are traded on an exchange. I changed it to read that the government owned the paper for that time but you'll want to read it over and make sure you agree. --Mmounties 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about the commercial register as well. But then I thought that those are named different by each country, or as in the US, State. It would therefore be next to impossible to find a "best" translation. Besides, your solution made clear what you meant. So in my book, it's ok. Very nice work. --Mmounties 23:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German titles

I fully agree with you - translation is neither necessary nor desirable. john k 18:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Gryffindor, It looks like you all have come to terms regarding the non-translation of particles, which is as it should be, lest we be faced with "Charles of Gaulle". It's nice that this latest periodic dust-up over what to call people ended so amiably! - Nunh-huh 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Just saw this when I replied you your post. I fully agree with you. Names should be "untouchable". Titles like Erzherzog von Fallersleben (if there is such a poor soul) I would translate to Arch Duke of ...  :) Pfia di! --Mmounties 23:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German wikipedians' noticeboard

Hello Gryffindor! I'd like to alert you that a noticeboard has been established to better aid discussion of articles concerning German-related topics. Feel free to participate with the project if you are interested! Olessi 01:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to post the same message here, and add that we are most probably moving to Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board to also cover Austrian, Swiss, Liechtensteinian, South Tyrolean etc. etc. topics. It would be nice if you could take a look and suggest some to-dos for us. Kusma (討論) 22:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey,

A dispute is on which might be of interest to you. You probably have heard of the US periodical, The Nation. It is one of a number of publications that exist or have existed using that name. However some US Wikipedians have decreed that all other publications of that name must be shunted off to a disam page with the US publication given sole custody of The Nation page, even though neither it nor any other publication with that name is international nor widely known outside each state's border. The confusion this causes can be seen in the fact that people making entries to the Thailand newspaper, the British magazine, the famous 19th century Irish paper, etc usually end up innocently creating links to the US periodical page on The Nation rather than the obscure disamb page (which is only found by a link at the top of the US article). It is blatently wrong. While most links are for the US publication, that is because most contributors on WP are US and the US publication covers a lot of people mentioned on WP. If the US publication was something like Time or Newsweek or The Times then one could justify it getting the main page. But even many US people have not heard of the US magazine and it is largely unheard of outside the US. Technically the Irish newspaper is more international in noteworthyness — it features in history books in Australia, the US, the UK etc because it was a prominent politically motivated radical newspaper in the 19th century. But IMHO it too does not enough international recognition to justify getting pride of place and claiming the name for itself.

The dispute is at Talk:The Nation. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

[edit] Austrian parties

No problem. There are two conflicting standards in place across the 'pedia, and I went with the newer one (originated in the British parties). Colours are editable via each party's talk page. The Tom 03:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

You asked me can I polish Image:SDAPÖ logo.PNG to a better version. Well, if you ask me, image is not so bad. Second thing is that what I like to do is to create new images (maps). To polish existing image is not so creative or challenging work for me (In another words, it is too monotonous). You can polish it by yourself if you have "Photoshop" program, if not, the "Paint" program would be also fine for such job. PANONIAN (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Mappa Due Sicilie.PNG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mappa Due Sicilie.PNG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Matt 13:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals and trolls

Hi, after that "not yet vandal/troll" comment you made, I thought I'd check his contributions (last time I checked there hadn't been much). It seems like he's been busy changing names around on quite a few pages and even moving pages over the last week or so. I'll leave it up to you to bring that to anyone's attention or not. :) --Mmounties 15:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)