User talk:Louis88

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Louis88! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

[edit] Monarchismus

Hervorragende Arbeit! Stijn Calle 21:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Was genau meinst du? - Louis88 21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laos pretender

Soulivong Savang is the heir to the throne as he is the son of the last Crown Prince, Vong Savang while Soulivong’s uncle Sauryavong Savang acts as regent for him but if the monarchy were restored Soulivong Savang would become king that is why he holds the title Crown Prince. dwc lr 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I misunterstood that. Louis88 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Flag of Courland.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Flag of Courland.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Chuck Norris Small.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Chuck Norris Small.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Flagge der Kaisertreuen Jugend.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Flagge der Kaisertreuen Jugend.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg (1871).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg (1871).jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Mormonism

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Category:Mormonism, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. San Diablo 21:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a sounding board for your personal beliefs. Your "objective" reasons to edit Mormon pages and categories are not universally agreed upon, and were not listed on the discussion pages for those topics. You made no attempt to reach a concensus. If you do not want to be accused of vandalism, don't make drive-by changes without warning or clarification to those affected. San Diablo 17:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deleting Line of succession to the Israeli throne

I wish to inform you I am requesting this article be deleted since I believe it is something between a hoax and a bad joke. DGtal 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just referred to information within the Wikipedia – I found other articles in the encyclopedia with much less information so I don't understand your request... Louis88 16:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case, the hoax was not your direct fault. You were based (in my judgment) on incorrect information someone added to Wikipedia, only to be discovered by chance. The only lesson to be learned is not using wikipedia as a sole source of information. Good day, DGtal 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Louis88/Mormonism

This userbox has been nominated for deletion. You may view the discussion here. Note I have changed the wording of your userbox because it was previously inflammatory, and could have caused bad feelings. The wording I changed it to is still a little harsh against Mormons, but it still might pass the deletion discussion. I encourage you not to change it back to the old wording or it will probably be deleted. -N 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category for deletion

Hi: Category:Pretenders to the throne of Israel has been nominated for deletion see the deletion discussion. Thank you. IZAK 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kings of France template

Dear Louis;

Just a note: I have moved the template from Kings of france to Monarchs of France to reflect the royal and imperial nature of the monarchs listed. I have also removed the fleurs de lys, as that is a Capetian symbol while Napoléon represented his dynasty with the bee. Charles 15:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know that there were Emperors, too, I'm dealing whit that topic for a certain time -I just took over the name of the old template because I didn't know what would happen otherwise (so I preferred to touch nothing there). Nevertheless you could leave the lilies, couldn't you? As far as I know, it symbolizes the French monarchy in general, not only the Bourbons, even if it's their emblem. - Louis88 15:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the fleurs de lys are pretty and all, but they are not entirely accurate. Perhaps if an appropriate heraldic representation of a bee could be found, the two symbols could be alternated. It is only a symbol of the Bourbons. The Bonapartes wouldn't touch it with a ten yard pole if they had to. It is also one of the reasons for the refusal of the tricolour at the re-establishment of the kingdom (rather than an empire). Charles 15:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you convinced me *g* - Louis88 17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese era names

Just recently, you corrected an unwelcome edit to the succession box on the page of the Japanese Emperor Komei. As it happens, I'm primarily interested in pre-Komei Japan; but I reasoned that if I were to make this small edit, it would come to the attention of someone like you -- someone who is specifically interested and knowledgeable about succession boxes.

Ultimately, I want to better understand the utility and limitations of succession boxes as computer-aided research tools and as a graphic teaching device; but I don't know enough to be able to adequately parse my own developing ideas. That's why I've approached you.

I would hope to begin a tentative discussion in the context of the English Wikipedia:

Perhaps -- if I allow myself to be overly optimistic -- in August I might be in a position to begin attempting a slow metastasis of information about Japanese era names or nengō from the English Wikipedia to its francophone counterpart.

Perhaps a better place to begin is for me to simply ask you to tell me as much as you feel comfortable explaining about why you like to create elaborate succession boxes? You must admit that your User page introductory sentences would inspire anyone's plausible curiousity? Ooperhoofd 19:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Well, I don't know exactly why I like working with successcion boxes - I like them because they are very useful in articles about pretenders to an abolished throne, because they look good (I helped a bit through modifying the colours ;-]) and because they briefly sum up the succession in different positions - I my view that's very interesting. And lastly, the creation of these boxes treats me... : )
Did I understand you correctly: You'd like me to introduce succession boxes in the articles about persons in the above lists?
Unfortunately, I won't be able to copy information to the French Wikipedia, because I'll start my studies in August and I don't think I'll have enough time then... - Louis88 14:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Monarchs_of_Germany_1806-1918

As German is your mother language (and also mine) I will write to you in German: Sorry, aber du vermischt da etwas gravierendes mit diesem Template Template:Monarchs_of_Germany_1806-1918. Bis 1871 gab es keine deutschen "Monarchs" (Kaiser) im eigentlichen Sinne, das waren Kaiser des Kaisertums Österreich (das 1804 gegründet wurde) die daneben auch den Vorsitz im Deutschen Bund innehatten. Aber es waren eben ÖSTERREICHISCHE KAISER! Der Deutsche Bund wiederum war nur ein loser Bund, vergleichbar der heutigen EU, und deswegen war es ja 1866 auch für Preussen relativ leicht, Österreich nach dem Preusisch-Österreichischen Krieg (Schlacht bei Königgrätz) rauszudrängen und selbst die Macht darin zu übernehmen. Daher kann ja auch erst ab 1871 von einem deutschen (Kaiser-)Reich gesprochen werden. In diesem Sinne ist es schlichtweg FALSCH, Österreichische Kaiser wegen ihrer Vorsitzrolle im Deutschen Bund als "Deutsche Kaiser" zu bezeichen, ich war grade sehr schockiert als ich das Template bei Franz II./I. gesehen habe. Das muss man ändern! Beste Grüsse -- Rfortner 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nein nein, das weiß ich. ich bezeichne die auch nicht als deutsche Kaiser: Es geht darum, welche Monarchen (egal woher sie kommen, Napoléon ist auch dabei) zwischen 1806 und 1918 in Deutschland die höchste Krone hatten, welche Monarchen in diesem Zeitraum Deutschland regiert haben. Du findest das so auch in List of German monarchs, schau mal rein. :-) Grüße, Louis88 14:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Ich habe auf der Diskussionsseite für das Template bereits einen response hinterlassen, vielleicht sollten wir dort weiterdiskutieren wo es hingehört. Deine Definition über den Zeitraum zwischen 1806 und 1918 ist recht willkürlich, weil wer hatte denn nun die höchste Krone? Die Bayern hatten z.B. bis 1871 ihr sogar eigenes Königreich, während der Süddeutsche Bund niemals realisiert wurde, der Rheinbund wiederum war nur in den Weststaaten vorhanden usw. ... Du stellst also Dinge auf eine Stufe, die man nicht auf einen Stufe stellen kann, nämlich das deutsche Kaiserreich (ab 1871) mit irgendwelchen losen Staatenbünden deutschsprachiger Staaten die noch dazu alle heiligen Zeiten mal ihre Zusammensetzungen geändert haben. Das ist doch nicht seriös? Also mein guter Vorschlag, das Template auf die Zeit ab 1871 zu beschränken, dann ist es historisch sauber und vermischt nicht voneinander unabhängige Dinge. Besten Gruß aus Wien, -- Rfortner 14:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Warum konntest du bisher nicht auf die Diskussion antworten, weder hier noch beim Template selbst, nachdem du ja in der Zwischenzeit genügend andere Edits gemacht hast? In seiner jetzigen Form ist das Template jedenfalls nicht zu halten, da muss (bald!) etwas geschehen. -- Rfortner 15:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Weil ich nicht wusste, was ich dazu groß sagen soll - ich hab ja hier dargelegt, warum ich es in der jetzigen Form eigentlich in Ordnung finde... - Louis88Louis88 08:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Na so einfach kannst du es Dir bei Wiki aber nicht machen, die Sache gilt es ja auszudiskutieren. Das Template muss entweder umbenannt werden oder auf die Zeit ab 1871 beschränkt werden (oder andernfalls gelöscht werden). Aussitzen kannst du die Diskussion jedenfalls nicht ;-) -- Rfortner 09:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also ich weiß nach wie vor nicht, was es daran auszusetzen gibt... wenn es nur um die Forumlierung der Überschrift geht, ist das kein Grund die Vorlage zu löschen. Bevor sie gelöscht wird, beschränk ich sie lieber auf 1871 bis 1918, aber wenn dann keiner mit nem Löschantrag ankommt, würd ich mich wundern... - Louis88 12:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also ich komme mit nem Löschantrag wenn sie NICHT umbenannt oder die zeitliche Bedeutung eingeschränkt wird. Wie du in der Diskussion zum Template sehen kannst gibt es bereits die ersten Missverständnisse, da ein User in seinem Posting meint die Österreichischen Kaiser würden deswegen drinnenstehen, weil Österreich im Deutschen Bund war. Dabei ist der von dir (und Charles) angegebene Grund ja vielmehr ihre "Präsidentschaft" im Deutschen Bund. Du siehst: In der derzeitigen Form ist das Template viel zu unpräzise und missinterpretierbar, und genau das ist mein Kritikpunkt. Also drei Möglichkeiten:

  • Umbenennen (ich habe dazu bereits einen Vorschlag in der Template-Diskussion gemacht, also sowas wie "Entwicklung des Deutschen Reichs", weil da haben dann die österreichischen Kaiser tatsächlich ihre Berechtigung entsprechend der Rolle die sie gespielt haben bis Preussen letztlich von diesen Vorbereitungen profitiert hat);
  • Einschränken ab 1871 (bzw. mit etwas geschickteren Formulierungen ab dem Norddeutschen Bund, weil der hatte zumindest quasi diesselbe Verfassung wie das Deutsche Reich und war kja dessen Ursprungsquelle);
  • Oder löschen. Was ich aber nicht für notwendig erachte wenn man einen der ersten beiden Vorschläge aufgreift. Wie du siehst bin ich nicht "justament" dagegen, mir gehts nur um historische Korrektheit und dass die LeserInnen von Wikipedia nicht zu falschen Schlüssen gedrängt werden. -- Rfortner 16:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hallo: Also ich habe das Template nun entsprechen der langen Diskussion die dazu abgehandelt wurde (und da auch andere User bereits zum Ändern des Titels angefangen haben) verschoben, zum neuen Titel: "Evolution of the German Empire 1806-1918". Das ist historisch gesehen die korrekteste Bezeichnung für die Ansammlung von Monarchen verschiedener Länder. Ich hoffe du kannst mit dieser ausgleichenden Lösung leben, dafür muss das Template aber auch nicht auf die Zeit ab 1871 begrenzt werden und die Frage eines Löschantrages stellt sich nach dieser Umbenennung auch nicht mehr. Das sollte eigentlich in deinem Sinne sein. ... Ich habe nur beim Layout ein Problem, weil die Headline nun etwas unschick aussieht, wie kommt das? -- Rfortner 18:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, das Problem mit der Headline habe ich grade selber gelöst. -- Rfortner 18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ZUSATZFRAGE, bevor ich es im Diskussionsforum zum Template frage schreib ich lieber gleich dir: Was macht eigentlich das Wappen des Heiligen Römischen Reichs (bzw. eigentlich von Maximilian II.) in dem Template? Wenn schon dann sollte es ein Wappen des Deutschen Bundes drin geben, aber das HRR wurde ja 1806 aufgelöst, also verstehe ich das Wappen im Template nicht?!? -- Rfortner 22:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dem Mann entgeht nichts *g*... Das soll für die Habsburger stehen, ich hab leider kein anderes Wappen gefunden... - Louis88 11:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Klar entgeht mir nix, in österreichischer Geschichte bin ich ziemlich fit. Obwohl überzeugter Republikaner und Sozialdemokrat kann ich trotzdem die historischen Leistungen der Habsburger für Österreich anerkennen, so wie der Großteil der Menschen in Österreich. Darum haben wir sie ja auch friedlich von dannen ziehen lassen und der österreichische Bundespräsident residiert heute noch in der Hofburg wo früher die Habsburger Österreich regiert haben, im ehemaligen Arbeitszimmer Josef II. ...
Achja, zum Wappen: Wenn du unbedingt die Habsburger in dem Template verewigen willst dann probier es mal hier commons:Category:House_of_Habsburg-Lorraine. Aber ja nicht das vom Franz Josef nehmen, weil Viribus Unitis war bereits der Wahlspruch der sinnprägend für den Vielvölkerstaat wurde. Und genau den wollte ja Preussen nie, denn die wollten ja (zu Zeiten des Deutschen Bundes) den deutschsprachigen Teil von Österreich abspalten und in den Deutschen Bund integrieren. Ministerpräsident Schwarzenberg war jener kluge Politiker unter Franz Josef, der das verhindert hat (übrigens ein Vorfahre des heutigen tschechischen Aussenministers, der ja eigentlich irgendwie auch aus Österreich kommt).
Und genau diese Vereinigung von deutschsprachigen und nichtdeutschsprachigen Gebieten, sowie die Hinwendung Richtung der Kronländer in Süd- und Osteuropa war ja das typische für das Kaisertum Österreich und die Österreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie, und in genau dem Punkt unterscheiden wir uns noch heute von unserem (befreundeten) Nachbarland Deutschland: kulturell, sprachlich aber auch kulinarisch usw. ... Das wird nur leider von vielen Deutschen immer viel zu leichtfertig abgetan, und deswegen reagieren wir dann so allergisch drauf wenn einer unsere Kaiser plötzlich Deutsche Monarchen nennt. Aber sonst sind wir ganz ok ;-) -- Rfortner 15:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*Räusper* Sag, wie tun wir jetzt weiter wegen dem Wappentausch? -- Rfortner 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm ja... ich dachte erst man könnte die schwarz-gelbe Flagge nehmen, aber die passt optisch nicht so gut... weißt du vielleicht wo das Habsburger Hauswappen hier zu finden ist? Dann könnten wir das da reinstellen. Schönes Wochenende! - Louis88 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Du musst mehr auf deine Artikel aufpassen, ist doch schon längst erledigt ;-) -- Rfortner 14:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession Boxes

Greetings Mr Louis88. I have noticed that you are interested in succession boxes and that you have made several edits to templates pertaining to said category of navigational aids. Most of those edits, of course, have been welcome, and have greatly improved some templates. However, there are also edits that have created some minor issues. Allow me to explain.

You see, there is a WikiProject called WikiProject Succession Box Standardization (SBS, for short), which deals with nothing but succession boxes. We have been trying hard and for quite some time to create a uniform structure of succession box templates. We truly appreciate your contributions, yet their results have at times undone some of our work. This has made us realise the benefits of organised and co-ordinated work over the various individual approaches. In short, we can achieve more if we work towards common objectives.

And this is exactly why we would like you to with us. You can join the project if you are interested enough, or you can simply share your knowledge and give us your opinion in guideline debates and template format conversations. (If you find the WikiProject pages somewhat unimpressive now, you are completely justified in saying so, but I should warn you that we are in the middle of a major re-organisation effort; in a week's time our project will be as good as any decent WikiProject.)

You have done a lot for Wikipedia, and we acknowledge that. However, if you would first discuss with us major changes in templates, new creations, and other important actions, we would be able to both help steer that energy to the direction most beneficial to the betterment of the succession box system overall, and improve those ideas to whatever extent that may be possible by using our collective brainpower and experience.

I am eager to hearing your reply.

PS: Please answer in this talk page, in order to keep the conversation unfragmented. Waltham, The Duke of 13:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Of course I'd like to help standardizing the WP succession boxes. I'm very sorry about having handicapped your work... I've just read the SBS page and I've got only a question: Where did I make a mistake exactly? I ask because I didn't find something I did offending against the guide lines but I'd like to avoid future misfortunes... Regards, Louis88 09:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have misunderstood me, Mr Louis. You have done nothing contrary to the scopes of our project. On the contrary, your edits show that you have understood them well and that you are acting in a spirit of good faith (at least as far as your edits to succession boxes are concerned, which are the ones I have looked at). However, when you (and all other contributors, for that matter) work on your own, several plausible yet regretful situations may occur: you might have the same ideas as other Wikipedians and not know about it, thus creating duplicate templates, or you might unwillingly start an edit war because you and another user might want to do the same thing but in a slightly different manner. A lack of mutual understanding (so common and unavoidable, given that Wikipedians come from all over the world) can easily aggravate a problem into something ugly and unmanageable.

As you understand, I am not talking so much about your past edits as about your future ones; one should not forget that the longer one participates in Wikipedia the more experience one gathers, the more comfortable one feels, and the bolder one's edits become. Working on a common plan can save us a lot of deletions, replacements, moves, and possibly heated discussions that are not really necessary, and that is exactly the kind of trouble we would be very happy to avoid.

It would also be futile and hypocritical of me to deny another ulterior motive that has led me to contact you: our WikiProject has been experiencing a lack of contributors lately, and we have been deprived of our think tank, so to speak. We need more opinions to shape our guidelines and more hands to do the necessary work a WikiProject entails. And the former is much more important because only people who know at least the fundamentals about the object of our work can help with this process, while one does not need to be a Project member to start adding and editing succession boxes; on the contrary, we are writing the new Guidelines page with the regular Wikipedian in mind, not the experienced one.

In addition, people who have a natural interest for succession boxes are coveted, not only because they have already mastered a great part of the knowledge and skills needed to create and edit succession boxes (and templates in general) and are interested in learning more, but also because these members will find the experience more amusing, thus staying longer, working more, and helping to create a friendly environment (and possibly draw more members to the project). I would not have done half of the work I have done had I not been so much intrigued by the particular WikiProject (despite the somewhat neglected state in which I initially found it).

I hope I have answered your questions and explained my thinking well enough. What you do next is up to you. Thank you for your time. Waltham, The Duke of 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, it is me again. I have noticed that you have added a "French royalty" header right above the "Regnal titles" header in Henry V of France (and many other articles about French monarchs). You should understand that individual headers have been created in such a way that their meaning is complete, and thus double headers are unnecessary. In addition, the whole Wikitable looks like someone has forgotten a box. And the succession box itself says "King of France and Navarre", so it is redundant to place a "French royalty" header right above it. I understand that you might not know that, as is not written in our Guidelines page (hardly anything is), but the new page will soon be posted and everything will be in there. I will undo some of these header additions, and I would like you to do that for the ones I miss. I hope I have explained the reasons behind this well enough and I am very sorry for the inconvenience our lacking guidelines have caused. Have a nice day. Waltham, The Duke of 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Your silence is somewhat disturbing, Louis88. I would really appreciate it if you could answer my messages, especially now that I have some news that concern you greatly. Your templates s-pvc and s-npr are identical with SBS's templates s-vac and s-new respectively, and thus have been deemed redundant by the WikiProject. They now redirect to our aforementioned templates, all references to them have been removed, and they are nominated for deletion (look here for the nomination of s-pvc and here for the nomination of s-npr).
In order to eschew similar creations of redundant templates in the future, please consult the page that documents the entire s-start series, Template:S-start/doc. There you can view the templates, their internals and appearance, and instructions on how they should be used. If you have any questions, please by all means ask them in our talk page.
I am deeply sorry for this regretful situation. I hope that we can avoid further misunderstanding of this kind. Waltham, The Duke of 23:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates S-ecc and S-off

Hello! Can you tell me, when these two templates will be released for edit again? Regards, Louis88 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello? - Louis88 17:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have unprotected {{s-ecc}} because it has been superseded by another template. {{s-off}} was indefinitely protected in December 2006 (as you probably saw by the page history). That was during a time when vandals would repeatedly tamper with templates used on hundreds of pages ({{s-off}} is used on a few thousand pages). I personally feel the threat of that type of vandalism is not really present at this time, but there probably is no need to remove the protection since the template is rarely edited. You are free to make an unprotection request at WP:RPP, however. Sorry for the late response; I (wrongly) assumed that these were two of the templates that I protect daily (those expire after twenty-four hours). -- tariqabjotu 17:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It would probably be better if template s-off remained protected. WikiProject Succession Box Standardization is working out the details of the whole succession box template system's re-organisation, and if the templates in question are protected the chances of edits going out of control will remain slim. Please do not unprotect. (If you have any questions, I refer you to the project's talk page.) Waltham, The Duke of 22:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I'm sorry about not having answered your message, I noticed them but I didn't understand that you'd like me to response. - Louis88 08:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But I don't agree with the remove of the "Regnal titles" header because we still have (e.g.) French royalty today but without titles in reign but in pretence. So to be a royal and to have regnal titles can be two different things indeed - the one information needn't to include the other one. Because of this fact, I'd like everyone editing the concerned boxes not to remove the headers. Louis88 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Listen, we are in the middle of a crisis over at SBS as we are trying to finalise our guidelines. For this reason, we would like to have some input; right now there is nobody but Whaleyland and myself. If you help us, we might be able to finish a little faster and be able to produce some detailed and unambiguous guidelines that can be followed by all succession box editors.
Even if you cannot or will not help, you can have a look at our /Guidelines draft here. That way you can see at least what our intent is. For now, I would like to ask a few things from you:
  1. Do not add double headers to succession boxes.
  2. Do not create more double successor cells in cases of vacancies. See Mehmed VI for the proper form of such boxes.
  3. Do not create new succession box templates (without discussing it with us first).
Nobody forces you to do these things, of course, but it would be extremely helpful if you could. We only need a few days... Waltham, The Duke of 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
PS: The "Regnal titles" header is being substituted in some boxes by the relevant s-roy headers as part of a proposed policy. It is not something certain yet.
It is me again. I would just like to say that adding parameters to templates is not a minor edit, and it would thus be preferable if you would not label such edits as minor. Thank you. Waltham, The Duke of 07:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qajar

Hello. Why did you move "Qajar dynasty" to "House of Qajar", without a move request or any discussion? Qajar dynasty is the more common term, which is used by all the other encyclopedias. Please undo your move.AlexanderPar 22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Iranian dinasties into the Houses of

Hi, Louis88, it is controversial move that should be discussed with the Iranian users first. Can you point me out there the move was discussed? Alex Bakharev 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double redirects

Hi Louis, just a note to let you know that when you move pages make sure you check for Double redirects that may have been created as a result and redirect them to the new article heading.dwc lr 00:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Buganda COA.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Buganda COA.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia

On July 2nd I began a discussion on the talk page about a possible claimed regnal name for this prince. You have repeatedly inserted this information in the article reverting another editor. But you have provided no justification on the talk page. An encyclopedia summarizes published information. If this claim has been published someplace, please provide the citation. If it is merely your own personal conclusion (edit summary: "The last head of the family with the name Friedrich was Friedrich III, so he'd be Friedrich IV logically"), then this violates the Wikipedia:No original research official policy. Noel S McFerran 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Louis88, as much as many of your edits are appreciated, if you try to pull this stunt again I, personally, will see to it that it is reported in the appropriate manner. Charles 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You have not been able to cite any source for your contention that Prince Georg Friedrich would reign as Friedrich IV if he were king of Prussia or German emperor. Please stop inserting this original research into articles; it is not permitted under the Wikipedia:No original research policy. If you can't discuss a controversial edit on a talk page (instead just re-inserting it over and over again), then you should stop editing entirely. Noel S McFerran 16:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pretender categories

Hi Louis, how are you? I see that you are re-categorizing pretenders based on the throne they may be claiming. I think this really ought to be discussed as it may lead to over-categorization. I certainly support the categorization based on the throne if there are rival pretenders (for instance, Russia, the Two Sicilies). There may be a case for categorizing when there are many, many pretenders, but when there is only one or two, I think that is best handled in the article as a succession box or template. Do you think that we (and perhaps others) can discuss the best way to categorize these pretenders before any more happens? Thanks. Charles 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Hello! : ) Yes, of course, no problem. I just looked at the Category:Pretenders and I didn't want to keep it as is was because that was simply silly... There were empty categories and the pretenders belonging to it were standing outside in the main category "pretenders". Furthermore, I wanted to "standardize" the categories' titles ("Pretenders to the X-an throne" instead of e.g. "...to the throne of the Ottoman Empire" etc.). I just wanted to introduce some order *g* Regards, Louis88 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I definitely agree with you, some order is required, but not necessarily everyone in a Pretender to the ...an throne category. Perhaps we can throw around some ideas at the pretender category talk page and formulate an appropriate way of categorizing most of the pretenders? Charles 19:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Pretender"

I see you have recently taken a lot of time to create or update pretender templates to various pages. I have taken special note of the template on China. This is because the definition of a "pretender" is someone who is claiming the throne after the monarchy has been abolished. However, none of Puyi's heirs, of either Manchukuo or of the Qing Dynasty as a whole has "claimed" any sort of imperial connection after the dynasty has been abolished, and in fact, many have changed their surnames to avoid a connection to their past. None of these people are in exile, and all of them live quite contently as ordinary Chinese citizens who simply see their lineage to the ruling Qing household as a neutral curiosity. Per Wikipedia's policy for the biography of living persons, I would not be surprised if one of these so-called pretenders saw the article and got offended by the label "pretender". Another thing is that you are making an assumption that political theory in China is the same as political theory in the west when it comes to monarchical succession, when in reality, Chinese political theory stipulates that once a dynasty has been toppled, it has lost the "mandate of heaven" unless its members continue to claim it in their own right (as in various Ming Dynasty princes after that Dynasty was toppled). If they do not claim it, then they cannot be a pretender. For example, the descendants of the Romanovs in Russia are claiming the throne, therefore they can be called "pretenders". The Chinese Aisin-Gioro descendants have not claimed any throne since Puyi left Manchukuo. Thus it would be incorrect and inappropriate to put a "pretender" template on Qing descendants, as then it would become necessary to put pretender templates on the descendants of every other Chinese dynasty. Colipon+(T) 10:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • But as I know, the word pretender includes persons who have got a right to the throne without explicitely claiming it (e.g. HIRH Prince Georg Friedrich von Preußen) because there is no other word for them. I looked around at Google and I saw that anyone uses the word "Pretender" / "Thronprätendent" with that definition. Louis88 18:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SBS guidelines ready

Greetings again, Mr Louis! You will be most pleased to hear that we have, at last, a page with clear and detailed guidelines about succession boxes, their usage, style, content, etc.

The page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines (I know, long name, maybe we need a shortcut for this page as well) and I believe you shall find it very interesting.

I hope further misunderstandings as far as succession boxes are concerned shall be avoided now. Waltham, The Duke of 07:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for having informed me! I'll have a look at the page. Louis88 09:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:S-ttl2

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:S-ttl2, by KuatofKDY (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:S-ttl2 fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

This page has never been used and is unnecessary and redundant to Template:s-ttl. Please delete this and the talk page! Thank you.


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:S-ttl2, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royalty headers

All of the Royalty headers I've removed is because they are incorrectly used per Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines. I also asked a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization#Few questions where I had had the use of the royalty header cleared up for me. I recommend you read the guidelines so you know the correct use of the headers or if you have any questions post them at WikiProject Succession Box Standardization where they will be able to answer any questions you may have.dwc lr 12:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Buganda_COA.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Buganda_COA.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shell babelfish 03:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Braganza

Louis88, STOP changing Braganza to Bragança. Braganza is the English form. It is incredibly uncivil of you to sneakily change it at every opportunity you have. Charles 00:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loituma Girl

I really badly wanted to use User:Louis88/Loituma Girl but I'm not certain those are the proper lyrics...These seem to be more accurate, but are hardly official. I would make my own userbox but I'm not really sure how. Gargomon251 17:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal and userbox

I don't know whether you were aware of this, but your userbox User:Louis88/ChuckNorris was created a few months after 212.219.63.204 used the statement "This Article has been roundhouse kicked by Chuck Norris and no longer exsist in normal space time." to vandalize this page. and Chris jol used similar language to create is user page. -- Jreferee t/c 18:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pahlavi COA.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pahlavi COA.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaisertreue Jugend

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kaisertreue Jugend, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Kaisertreue Jugend. Crusio (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Flagge der Kaisertreuen Jugend.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Flagge der Kaisertreuen Jugend.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monarchists and the flag

(copied from IP talk-page: much better to talk with a user)

This is an interesting point. Do you have any supporting references for this? If so, please include them in the page. Thanks. - 52 Pickup (deal) 15:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well firstly – as monarchist – I'm in contact to other monarchists and this is the common opinion. But if you'd like to see some reference in written form, see www.kaisertreue-jugend.de.vu, I just don't know where exactly where we discussed the topic there, sorry... But however, whereever you find German monarchists in the web discussing the flag question, you will find that opinion... : ) - Louis88 18:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. At the moment, I am the main editor of the Flag of Germany article and I am currently busy with trying to find suitable references for all major points. So far I have no references to cover the view of modern monarchists in Germany - the information currently there is just my translation from the flag-related articles of the de-wiki. Following your suggestion, I looked at a few sites and found some supporting statements that did not look too much like personal opinion (personal opinion is rarely accepted as a satisfactory reference), so I'll have that fixed soon. - 52 Pickup (deal) 14:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Orléanist Pretenders

A tag has been placed on Template:Orléanist Pretenders requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, I'd written the template French Pretenders, we don't need the simple templates anymore. I had deleted the template for the legitimist pretenders from the concerned articles once but they were reinserted (?)... Louis88 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Bonapartist Pretenders

A tag has been placed on Template:Bonapartist Pretenders requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Louis88! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French Flag

I have also replied on my talk page you are correct that the naval ensing was used a the national flag of the Kingdom of France but this is not true for the period 1814 - 1830 during the bourbon restoration the white flag with a semy of yellow fleurs-de-lis was used [1] --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 13:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of French State 1700s, 18th century

Sorry Louise88 but I gave plenty of sources on Flag of France discussion, including a link to the reverse of the NYPL plate. Here it is again: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgdisplaylargemeta.cfm?strucID=585780&imageID=1236062&parent_id=585395&word=&s=&notword=&d=&c=&f=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&num=0&imgs=12&total=98&pos=2&snum= It shows the white flag with fleur de lis and the arms of france in center, as a number of sources say: "Prior to the French Revolution, there was no national flag which represented France. A variety of flags were used by troops, different types of ships and for other purposes. From 1590-1790 this flag is one of four that was used on warships and fortresses. The plain white flag, known as the Bourbon Banner, and this white flag with three golden fleurs-de-lis, a white flag with many fleurs-de-lis, or a white flag with many fleurs-de-lis with the arms of France in the center". The sources you give are mostly web sites indirectly speaking of the 'white flag' in relation to the tricolor. This is from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: "The oriflamme and the Chape de St Martin were succeeded at the end of the 16th century, when Henry III., the last of the house of Valois, came to the throne, by the white standard powdered with fleurs-de-lis. This in turn gave place to the famous tricolour." And this from The American Cyclopaedia: A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge By George Ripley, Charles Anderson Dana,1874, p.250, "the standard of France was white sprinkled with golden fleurs de lis". I also showed a link to Peale painting of Washington with that flag showing: http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/speccol/sc1500/sc1545/e_catalog_2002/1120research.html Lafayette was physically present for this painting and would have corrected any error in the flag. I didn't correct the Flag of France because I assume you are still working on it. The icons elsewhere, however, were correct in the first place and while there is technically nothing wrong with using the white flag its not one of the commonly used flags at the time and pretty inadequate as a graphic. From what I see any of the other 3: white with a field of fleurs de lis, white with a field of fleur de lis surmonted by the Arms of the King and white with 3 fleurs de lis are all more often used as the flag for the state of france than the white only. "- au dix-huitième siecle (= in the 19th century) -" means the 18th century, or 1700's, not the 19th century. huit is french for 8. It was a lot of work in the first place to put those flags before you changed them and you changed many more I didn't revert but should be reverted. The article on the Flag of France is coming along very nicely but doesn't clearly explain things before the birth of nationalism and the revolution and which the variations of the Bourbon flags exemplify. It would be reasonable to add the other flags to the boubon period as state flags. The reason I sourced the icons was to stop the edit war by using acceptable sources to support my edit. Will you revert the changes you made to articles for the 7 yrs war and other 18th cent france art with flag icons?Tttom1 (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)