User talk:Gryffindor/Archive10

Happy birthday fellow Wikipedian!

Here's to you on your birthday, Gryffindor/Archive10! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Cheers from Canada!  ;-) --RobNS 02:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

birthday wishes

"Hi there RobNS, thank you for your wishes, that's very nice of you." Gryffindor 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure!  ;-) --RobNS 06:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Notifictions of deleted images

The template {{nobots}} is supposed to help. You might want to check out the Template:Bots page for fuller information. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC).

Archdukes of Austria

Gryffindor, as much as I prefer royal titles, I must say that the recent moves of some archdukes should probably be discussed. Are you going to move Otto von Habsburg to Otto, Crown Prince of Austria? Where WP:NC(NT) is concerned is only when royal titling is included in the name and then what form it takes. It doesn't mean that all titled people absolutely must have titles. Also, few of the Habsburgs use the -Lothringen part. Habsburg friends of friends of mine don't. On that basis, why didn't you move Francesca to Francesca Habsburg-Lothringen to match her husband or why didn't you move both of them, to Archduchess Francesca of Austria and Archduke Karl of Austria? I think you should revert the moves are start a move request. Now, if you want to move Franz Joseph I of Austria to Francis Joseph I of Austria... Charles 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

While Francesca's surname may be some form of (von) Habsburg (-Lothringen), so are the surnames of Géza, Felix, etc. On that basis, why were they moved to archducal titles and Francesca and her husband weren't? I believe "Felix Habsburg" is the most common name for that archduke, analagous to his brother Otto. *Certainly* I have only seen Géza ever as "Géza von Habsburg". Even on TV, his name appears as Dr. Géza von Habsburg with "Archduke of Austria" in script underneath it. These moves should be reverted and discussed. If moved at all, Francesca should be titled Archduchess Francesca of Austria. Géza should certainly be at Géza von Habsburg and Felix's case should be discussed. Also, when moving princes such as Alfred III (of Windisch-Grätz), append the title to the end of their name if they were the head of a house or ruler of a territory. This differentiates them from other similarly titled people in their family. Alfred was "the" Prince, so his formated is <Name (Ordinal)>, <Title> of <Place> while others would be <Title> <Name> of <Place>. Charles 00:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Francesca's surname is different than her husband's in the article titles. Charles 00:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Prince Felix of Schwarzenburg is at the right location. His uncle, and then his cousin, was the Fürst while Felix's position all of his life was that of a Prinz (this distinction is tougher for families where all used Fürst, like Wrede, and also titles like Herzog and Graf but it is easily determined). I am as certain as you are about Alfred III because you moved him to the numeral and the only royalty who used numerals, other than the Heinrichs Reuss, were the heads of houses and families. Friedrich Johannes Jacob Celestin von Schwarzenberg has the wrong nobiliary particle anyway, he was zu, not von. He was also a junior prince because he had an older brother who outlived him who was also "the" Prince (John Adolph II). I don't mind leaving the German "von" or "zu" for princes of territories if the title isn't used. For instance, Felix zu Schwarzenburg and Prince Felix of Schwarzenburg would both be acceptable but not a mixture. Adolph von Auersperg had an older brother who died after him but a source I have gives Adolph's title as Fürst, which wouldn't make sense. I would leave him be for now and ask on his page if he was head of the house. Prince Karl of Auersperg is actually the brother in question so logic would mean that he was the Fürst but again, I would ask on the page. Charles 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rudolf of Habsburg-Lorraine should stay at the title Rudolf von Habsburg-Lothringen according to WP:NCWC#Cardinals. I would leave him there, I think that religious titles generally trump royal or imperial titles. Alexander von Mensdoff-Pouilly is a bit of a complex case. I'll explain. The family has two parts: the first part has the title Count(ess) of Dietrichstein-Proskau-Leslie for junior members and Prince of Dietrichstein in Nikolsburg, Count of Proskau-Leslie for the head. Currently extinct, I believe. Alexander's line was Count(ess) of Mensdorff-Pouilly for junior members except for his issue, which was Count(ess) of Dietrichstein-Mensdorff-Pouilly (maternally related to the first family) while his title was Prince of Dietrichstein in Nikolsburg, Count of Mensdorff-Pouilly. I suggest the title Alexander, Prince of Dietrichstein or simply Alexander von Mensdoff-Pouilly. There are too many other variables. He wasn't "the" count (he had older brothers with issue) but he was "the" prince. Karl Alois Johann-Nepomuk Vinzenz, Fürst Lichnowsky's title was "Prince Lichnowsky" (no von, I believe) so his title should be Karl Alois, Prince Lichnowsky. About Karl of Auersperg, my preference is the ordinal after the name (Karl III), not before the title (8th Prince), but check to see if other princes have it. Preferably, ask about the numbers before the title at WT:ROYALTY or WT:NC(NT). It does need to be clarified. I think we use them for Leiningens here. Charles 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Wiener Zeitung.PNG

A tag has been placed on Image:Wiener Zeitung.PNG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Wiener Zeitung.PNG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BJ^Talk 13:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BZÖ Logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BZÖ Logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:UE

HI I am informing you on the following discussions referring to the usage of diacritics on en.wiki. It seem there is a movement/campaign of some peple (moreover administrators) which try to eliminate them from the usage on en .wiki. Or at least to minimize , even for personal names in Latin script

Since I have seen your name in some discussions I thought it would be nice to inform you. Pay attention to the following pages :WP:UE , Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics and similar ones if you are interested. Anto (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

History of South Tyrol

Hi! Since you have been involved in the interminable Alto Adige/South Tyrol/Province of Bolzano-Bozen debate I'd like your opinion on some heavy editing which is being done on the History of South Tyrol page by an anonymous user. I have made my objections clear on the talk page, it would be nice to have some more users take a look at the situation. Thanks, Pcassitti (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Recognition

		The Turkish Barnstar of National Merit
		I, CeeGee, award you the Turkish Barnstar of National Merit in appreciation of your continuous efforts to create and improve Culture of the Ottoman Empire related pages in English Wikipedia. Keep it up! CeeGee (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Villa di Cafaggiolo

Why have you moved this page from its correct name, with no discussion or consultatation? Please see talk page. Giano (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have left a related comment over at User talk:Giano II. -- Theramin (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Article needing to be deleted

As with many things in Wikipedia, figuring out just how to nominate an entry to be considered for deletion is taking far longer than I currently have the time for. This would be my first such article, as I have a pretty high tolerance for "notablity." Yet this one fairly screams for it: Party Unity My Ass. For one, that's not the name of the organization (see the reference section). Another, there are virtually no sources for any of the material concerning the make up of these related organizations. RoyBatty42 (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Imperial palaces in Turkey

Hi.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AImperial_palaces_in_Turkey&diff=222152355&oldid=222011619

If I implemented the same changes (particularly the more discreet wrapsensitive dividers and cross-browser-compliant linewrap handling) to the Royal Palaces UK template -- perhaps itself renamed to Template:Royal palaces in the United Kingdom -- would you feel able to accept them?
Also, please forgive my ignorance, but why is Eski Palace singled out as "historical"?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've formatted the template again so that:

• The linewrapping is better handled again (to use it, all you need to remember is to place {{nowrap begin}} before a string of links, attach {{·w}} to the end of each link, then place {{nowrap begin}} after the string of links);
• The repeated "Palace"s are removed again, but the two links to parks remain;
• Italics plus the footnote (the "below" parameter) indicate Eski Palace's status. If/when there are any more links like Eski Palace, it might be worth giving them their own group. I think the "Historical" in Template:Royal palaces in the United Kingdom doesn't mean the places listed no longer exist (unlike, so you say, Eski Palace).

Hope all that's now okay. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Princess Stephanie of Windisch-Graetz.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Princess Stephanie of Windisch-Graetz.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Daijō

Your recent name change for this article troubles me. To be blunt, my preference would be to disagree, to dispute, to revert what you've done. Unfortunately, I can only think of favorable arguments which support your edit as entirely appropriate and as WP:MOS-consistent. In the absence of anything substantive, I'm forced to conclude not only that your edit was justified, but that I was just plain wrong. Puzzling, but there you have it. If this feeble dissent comes to represent the worst criticism you encounter over the course of the summer, then clearly -- you must have done something praiseworthy. For now, I guess I'll just have to ponder a bit more ... and maybe I'll come up with something a bit more constructive. --Tenmei (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well no harm done now is it? If you look at the category list Category:Japanese emperors I think my move should be quite obvious. There were many discussion before in the past about how to name them, and this is the format that was agreed upon. Although I do still have a problem with the name of the category "Category:Japanese emperors", since some were female, so I think "Monarchs of Japan" would probably be more correct and inclusive, considering that "tenno" is a gender-neutral term and so would be "monarchs". What do you think? Gryffindor 19:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Gryffindor -- No question, you did the right thing. There is no question of harm, only a matter of improving Wikipedia by a concise and well-considered edit.

If I had a complaint or even an oblique dissent, please believe that I would not have hesitated to argue the point. In this instance, I just didn't see the logical possibility you've now resolved, didn't even make the obvious connections you've now clarified. This seems to have been another one of those inexplicable blind spots which crop up from time to time.

I've noticed that editors I follow closely -- stalwart contributors like Fg2 and Bendono, for instance -- tend to be consistently rational, clear, reasonable. That shouldn't be construed as criticism -- it's just the way it is. Often, I do strive to emulate them; but occasionally I'm confronted with something rather more irrational in my own thinking, something a bit more difficult to parse. Your edit arouses this kind of difficult-to-parse, yet plausibly legitimate, response. I don't quite know what to make of it, but there it is anyway.

My immediate response to your edit seems to have incorporated something of a counter-intuitive, Luddite logic. Sorry to be forced to admit it; but there you have it. Perhaps such trivial controversies can only be clarified by a frank admission and the passage of time. I can recognize and I do confess that my reaction seems rather obscure. On the other hand, this doesn't in any way suggest indifference; and I'm always ready to take note of those odd controversies which deny any foothold for indifference.

In this instance, I'm persuaded that Category:Japanese emperors cannot be improved. My best guess: Let it stand ... for now. Perhaps I'll have more to say later; but for now, this is all there is.

I have no doubt that your sundry contributions are noticed by a great many others, even when there isn't the kind of explicit reaction as this instance has produced. --Tenmei (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Howdy

Hey Gryffindor, just want to let you know that I mentioned your name at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Anglocentric. Cheers, Olessi (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.
As a side note, Gryffindor, because you have the nobots string on your page, I had to deliver this by hand. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please let me know and I will be sure to remove you from the list. Shalom- L'Aquatique[happy fourth!] 04:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Beer category decision

As you took part in the last Great Beer Cat Discussion, I thought you might be interested in this one: A discussion has been opened on changes that have been made to the existing Beer category system. The changes reverse the decision made by the Project in April 2006. The changes were based on agreement by only two people, and by a discussion that took place outside the Beer Project. There may be some merit in the changes, and to prevent future conflict it is important that there is some discussion of the matter. If you're interested, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Brewery_cats. SilkTork *^YES! 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Collections of the Kunsthistorisches Museum

If you had looked at the Cfd debate you would have seen you have set up a duplicate to this long-standing category. In any case we do NOT just remove Cfd tags we don't like - see WP:CFD. Now you have set up the oddly named Category:Secular and Ecclesiastical Treasury, for what is known in English as the Imperial Treasury Schatzkammer, or just the Schatzkammer, Vienna. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Members of the House of Savoy

Members of the House of Savoy use(d) the title "prince(ss) of Savoy" even when the head of the house was king of Sicily, or king of Sardinia, or king of Italy. Just because the head of a house uses a particular title, does not necessarily mean that the cadet members use a comparable one - another example is the Hohenzollerns (the head was German Emperor, the heir was German Crown Prince, the cadets were "only" princes of Prussia). Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

hi there,

I understand that they were titled that way, however Wiki convention on royalty requires the naming of a territory, not a family. Prussian princes are also not listed as "Prince X of Hohenzollern". Gryffindor 23:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Savoy IS a territory, as well as a family (just like Hohenzollern). The naming convention does not say "give new titles to people that have never had them". Please take a look at any major royal genealogical work (e.g. Almanach de Gotha, Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels); you will see that the children of King Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia were never called princes of Sardinia. For an online source see Line 2 here [1]. You can find volumes of the Almanach de Gotha at http://gallica.bnf.fr.: "In virtue of a family statute of January 1, 1890, the children of the king and of the heir prince have the right to the title of prince (princess) of Savoy". The same is true of princes of earlier generations. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware that Savoy is a territory, thank you very much. However the higher designation in this case was Sardinia, not Savoy. Gryffindor 11:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This "higher designation" never existed. The children of a king of Sardinia did not have the title "prince(ss) of Sardinia". The children of a king of Italy did not have the title "prince(ss) of Italy" (although the heir was sometimes popularly referred to as crown prince of Italy). The title they had by family statute and the title they actually used was "prince(ss) of Savoy". Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Spanish royal sites

Hi again. Looked like the template was missing the "name" entry and a </noinclude> tag. Seems to be working okay now. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Don't worry, happy to help. This is the kind of stuff where it's not so important to be a smooth operator. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

KylieX2008

Wikipedia's image policy states numerous images used in an article must be relevant to the text of the article, not necessarily the subject. As stated in my edit summary, multiple images are not needed in a tour article unless they demonstrate something significant about the article's content. Your images do not do that, they just display Minogue performing during the various acts thus their inclusion in the article is completely irrelevant. I understand that this is your own work and you would like to display it but Wikipedia is not a personal website nor is it a hosting server. Having a link to your images to Wiki Commons is suitable enough for the article. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the body of the text that can significantly justify your images. Images should related to content not subject as I have stated before. I am bringing this matter to the attention of an admin. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because as an editor on Wikipedia, you must follow and enforce the policies and guidelines that were set in place to avoid issues like these. As mentioned before, I have referred this matter to admin and if he or she feels that your edits were constructive or not. Until a decision is made, please do not alter the current state of the article. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you cannot read and I no longer have time to play childish games with you. I have requested that you be blocked. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The policies you are breaking:

• Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. [2]
• Articles may get ugly and difficult to read if there are too many images crammed onto a page with relatively little text. They may even overlap. For this reason, it is often a good idea to temporarily remove the least-important image from an article and queue it up on the article's talk page. Once there is enough text to support the image, any contributor is free to shift the image back into the article. [3].

Until there is sustainable content on the KylieX2008 article, numerous images should not be added. Its has nothing to do with style or personal vindication. Having a link to the images in Wiki Commons is fine until sufficient content is added to the article. This has been explained to you numerous times. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just to let you know, I saw the discussion on the talk page and I have added more content so that images can be included. Not the best prose as I have been emerged in a biology term paper for six hours, feel free to edit. I know she can be hard at times, but she means well. Alkclark (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi! I'm working on Austrian legislative election, 2008 and remember working together with you some time ago on Austrian political parties; I could use your help: I'm trying to locate photos of Faymann, Molterer and Dinkhauser (and a short article on Faymann couldn't hurt, either). Could you help me with any of that? —Nightstallion 11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh. None of the parties replied with their assent to the use of the photos on Wikipedia. :( —Nightstallion 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello!!

Hey - long time no talk. Been pretty busy. Need your administrative help in deleting a copied image. As you will see on the Provinces of Italy page, User:Supparluca is causing trouble trying to replace an image I had with alternate naming (from commons) with one he copied from me and is trying to put in based on Italian language only. The image should be deleted (Image Trentino-Alto Adige Provinces.png) and Supparluca needs to be told to cease his actions. Rarelibra (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

G8 summits

I wonder if you might have a view to express in the following context:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 25#Category:G8 summit resorts

I have expressed an opinion, but I'm not certain that my views are necessarily more important than anyone else's. --Tenmei (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving consensus title

I see that you are an admin but please do not move article titles that possibly have consensus, unilaterally. I am confident that if you decide to put in a request for move, the current title, Holy Crown of Hungary which is most well known and correct (the current crown is not actually the same as the one worn by Saint Stephen), will be retained during the discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you did google search or other research into the name but as it has some variants you should search "Holy Crown" and then add +hungary or some other extra because in articles which already established to be about Hungary the full form used here + "of Hungary" will not be present just as we have the full article title "Napoleon I of France" to identify our article and point to the country out of many we cover for other articles in other context it would seem weird for them to use "of France" when writing a history article or book on France already. The main point of the article name is "Holy Crown" and that is what's most common, correct and official. The 'of Hungary' part is something that's required only per wikipedia standards ala "Napoleon of France". Hobartimus (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point I must ask you to provide some assertion that your preferred version is more common. I find 2900 ghits for your version and 31000 for "Holy Crown". Hobartimus (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition hundreds of articles link to the current long established title. When I said consensus, it is clear that the previous move was uncontroversial and passed a long time ago. Your move however is extremely controversial as you can see it by being reverted within a few minutes. The previous discussion took place "12 November 2007 (UTC)" it is not relevant today. I must ask that you first revert your controversial move that you used admin tools to complete without seeking imput from anyone and then we can begin discussion from there. Hobartimus (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I opened a new "request for move" section at talk for your request to rename from "Holy Crown" variant to "Crown of Saint Stephen" variant on the talk of the article at the bottom. Hobartimus (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have time

I could use your input HERE. THanks! Rarelibra (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

El Escorial

Please read Talk:El Escorial, where I set out my reasons for moving it back to the common name and pointed out the big differences between El Escorial and Versailles. Wikipedia policy is to use common name - absolutely nobody calls it the "Royal Seat of San Lorenzo de El Escorial"! Discuss before you make a move like this. There were good reasons for it to be named this in the first place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

I added the map you uploaded to the Judenplatz article. Hope you don't mind. One day perhaps it would be beneficial to add a key and some locations to it maybe zooming in on the square. This image is another really powerful addition to the article. Thanks for your uploads, its good to see your photography on this article. DVD 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Plavalaguna

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Plavalaguna, 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Rodhullandemu 02:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Plavalaguna

I have nominated Plavalaguna, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plavalaguna. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Rodhullandemu 03:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

nobility titles

Hi Gryffindor. Sorry to give you that trouble. However, I still think the names can be shortened, namely the ones with lots of surnames. It seems to me that the rule #8 "No family or middle names" (even though it is for monarchs) could be applied here. Besides, that seems to be the overall feeling of the section "Other royals" (not sure this applies to dukes too, either, but anyway, what I'm talking about here is simplification of overly long article titles). Finally, there's also the rule #4: Numerals are not generally used. Example: Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, not "Prince Richard, 2nd Duke of Gloucester".(in section "Royals with a substantive title"). So what do you say to all this? --Waldir ^talk 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hum, ok, I got it... but still, what about the multiple middle names? I still think those are unnecessary in the title... --Waldir ^talk 21:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Khedive Palace

On 15 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Khedive Palace, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What?

What do you meen by "Better image"? I put the previous image in the template because it fitted better than the rest of the tall buildings images. The template does not look very simetric right now. Cheers!Mario1987 09:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

re

I tried to put another image of a tall building in my hometown, one of the tallest in Romania but the other editors didn't agree. Sorry and cheers!Mario1987 20:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)