User talk:Gryffindor/Archive5

Please do not edit. This is an archive page.

Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst

I have added the prince to the requested moves page. Maybe you'll support the move? By the way, thank you for discussing the changes at Austrian nobility rather than being brash and mercilessly editing. Charles 17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Happy Valentines Day to you too! No hurry, feel free to get on to that scenario (which was Sango'2 idea) whenever is convenient. Cheers Banez 18:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what Banes said. :) Cheers, Sango 123 (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag or Coat of Arms

What is the problem with using the Coat of Arms instead of the flag in the template Politics of Austria? A coat of arms is usually a symbol of the government, so it is appropriate. Electionworld 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the start on there was no general usage of either flag or coat of arms. The most I created were with flags, but many others had coats of arms. I read some arguments in favour of the coa's, so that convinced me that coa's are nicer to use. I asume you don't mind changing it in coa. Electionworld 20:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox Swiss town

If you could post something there under the Small font item in support of my request, I'd really appreciate it. :) Thanks, --Mmounties 18:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neeeeever mind. Looks like everyone I asked to help came through, and I know you're kind of handicapped right now. :) Hope you get your Internet troubles sorted out soon. --Mmounties 22:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 12% for major edits and 17% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 19:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landeshauptmann

As you are one of the main contributors to this article, I thought you might want to participate in this discussion. Kusma (討論) 20:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot reply

hi Mathbot, thanks for your message. I find it a bit odd that I am being asked this, because I think I've been leaving edit summaries whenever I think them necessary. So maybe if you could point out specific cases, then I can respond to your comment better. cheers Gryffindor 19:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can look at your contributions. You will see that most edits are not summarized. :) Edit summaries are good at all or most times, as what is obvious to you may not be obvious to people who run into your edits. See edit summary for more info. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching

Hi, Gryffindor. Just dropping by to see if you had given some thought to User:Gryffindor/AdminCoaching. ;) Cheers, Sango 123 (e) 23:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's okay for other users to add comments on the admin coaching page as long as they're constructive. :) Thanks for the thorough responses! Banes and I have both looked over it. Cheers, Sango 123 (e) 00:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luise of Tuscany

Austria-Este is a formal designation whereas names like Bourbon-Parma, Austria-Tuscany, etc are informal designations sometimes encountered in conversation or discussion. Austria-Tuscany is something I personally never use. It's only use would be to describe the dual status of Tuscan grand dukes and princes as archdukes of Austria. Luise was the agnate of a Tuscan grand duke, more than a title of nobility, somewhat sovereign (it is tricky with regard to the passing of the title through the Austrian imperial house). I believe her Tuscan status is more important in this instance. The farthest I would go would be to put her at Luise of Tuscany and Austria, but that is too much.

Luise, however, was never the queen of Saxony. I think the way in which she is currently name would present a problem. She could be put at Archduchess Luise, Princess of Tuscany. Charles 17:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (about Luise) and stated so on her talk page. If you do not think that it would cause to much of a disturbance I say go ahead and move her. Otherwise WP:RM, and let's see what happens. Prsgodd e ss187 19:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I think Albert should be moved to Albert, Prince of Thurn and Taxis... I see Albert of Monaco is titled the same way. Charles 17:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luise's father was the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Agnates of the Tuscan grand ducal family are princes and princesses of Tuscany. Therefore, Luise was titled as a Princess of Tuscany, Princess Royal of Hungary & Bohemia and as a Princess Imperial & Archduchess of Austria. She was Princess Luise of Tuscany, but I believe the mention of the archducal title is important. Archduchess Luise, Princess of Tuscany is a nice, simple article title. Similarly, the Belgian Habsburgs are titled at Prince Lorenz, Archduke of Austria-Este, etc. Charles 19:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added my input to the move request... Archduchess Luise, Princess of Tuscany is a good title. Charles 18:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

こんにちは

こんにちは。よろしければ、ja:Wikipedia:ウィキポータル/ユダヤ教/執筆依頼の赤リンクの執筆に参加しませんか。ぜひja:Wikipedia:ウィキプロジェクト/ユダヤ教に Gryffindor とサインしてください。Jewish Vienna / Juedische Wien を求めています。 --Sheynhertz _געשׁ״ך 02:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

der Salon Todesco

Edit to your talk page

I wonder if you wouldn't mind a slight change to your talk page. I figured an archive box would be nice. If you find it messes with your layout, you're welcome to revert it but I figured I'd help. (I didn't know where to put the Admin Coaching link though) - File:Ottawa flag.png nath a nrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 03:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on 8000!

Just saw that you passed that mark. Nice going. Did you know they have categories of Wikipedians by number of edits. And from what the notes on the templates say, they are interested in users fessing up to their number of edits, especially if they have as many as you and more. :) Have a great weekend. --Mmounties (Talk) 06:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Austria

I'm always eager to learn something new; could you please explain why one flag is prefered over the other? I'm sorry I only know the German names of the flags; the (plain) one is the "(Staats-)Flagge", the other one (including the "Wappen" (Coat of arms?)) is the "Dienstflagge", that is usually only to be used by goverment officials. So the official flag of Upper Austria is plain white-red. To use the "Dienstflagge" to represent Upper Austria is juristically wrong, it does not represent Upper Austria but an Upper Austrian govermental official. The same is valid for whole Austria, [1] is not the flag of austria eventhough you always see it at football matches ... --Wirthi 18:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested!

Hi there! How are you? I'm swamped (hence my distance) but, if you get a moment, please weigh in on this issue/poll. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of my RfA

Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y Arktos 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

Hi, you are or were using Image:Austrian State flag large.png in your signature file, but this is not listed as a public domain image and has been marked for speedy deletion under WP:CSD I5. I wanted to give you the opportunity to either figure out its copyright status or replace them with Image:Flag of Austria (state).svg from Commons (the status of which actually is also unclear). Thanks. howch e ng {chat} 22:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures from Wilanów Palace

Thank you for letting me know. I have contacted the museum for permission to use their images. Once I have received a yes, how should I make note of it in the image information? Would "Used with permission from (Author)." suffice? --Vegalabs 21:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dresden1945-2.jpg

Hi Gryffindor.

This image was uploaded by User talk:NetguruDD and I just edited it. RE: the source, I have a feeling that the image was taken by a photographer who was fairly well-known in Dresden at the time and who is now dead. I seem to remember seeing on another Dresden ruins picture somewhere that he took many pictures of the ruined city and died leaving them to a museum, but obviously it would be better to ask NetguruDD about that. Regards, Ian Dunster 12:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Gryffindor.

I have just found the same image here: [[2]] together with more pictures: [[3]] - there is a statement on the copyright here: [[4]] but I don't know what the museum's [[5]] policy on us using the image(s) would be. Regards, Ian Dunster

Note that now that we do have the source, we could make a pretty good fair use case (low-res reproduction, pertinent to the discussion in the article, historic photograph). Lupo 14:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Gryffindor. OK, let me know what happens RE: the e-mail to the museum. Hi Lupo. I agree on the 'fairusein' bit. Regards, Ian Dunster 14:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Uchwalenie Konstytucji 3 Maja.jpg

Don't be silly. It's a plain reproduction of a 2D original, falling squarely under Bridgeman v. Corel. The reproduction, whether digital or not, has no copyright of its own if the original is PD. Proof that the original is PD is all that is required. Also see WP:PD. Lupo 14:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sorry if I've offended you, but your position is silly and makes me angry because I now have to clean up not only after the original uploader but also after you, to catch these images before their seven days are up. It is in these cases irrelevant where the file came from. Emax may have scanned it in from some book we could never track down. What is important is that these are mechanical reproductions of 2D originals that are PD and thus these digital images also are PD. Our policies need to make sure that we can ascertain that a PD claim is true. Knowing where the file itself came from doesn't help us at all in determining this in such cases. Lupo 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you really could do a quick Google search in such "highly likely to really be PD" cases instead of just indiscriminately tagging them as "nosource". They're all easy to find. I usually do that. After all, we want to keep as many images as possible, so if an unsourced PD claim appears plausible and can easily be confirmed, it should be done. Of course, I don't spend hours trying to track an image down. But it's worth a try. Lupo 14:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JDoorjam's RfA

Thank you!
Hey Gryffindor/Archive5, thank you for your support in my RfA: it passed with a final tally of 55/1/2. If you want a hand with anything, please gimme a shout. Again, thanks! – JDoorj a m Talk 21:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

My RfA

Hey Gryffindor/Archive5, how is it going? Thank you for supporting my Request for adminship! It passed with a final vote of 73/1/1, which means that I have been granted adminship! I look forward to using these tools to enhance and maintain this wonderful site. I will continue regular article/project contributions, but I will also allocate a sizable portion of my wikischedule toward administrative duties :) Thanks again, and if you have any questions/comments/tips, please let me know! — Deckiller 04:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Hey, Gryffindor. I'm willing to nominate you for adminship if you are willing to accept it. I've heard a lot of good things about you from Mmounties and I've noticed you around WP for a while now. You seem to be very well and consistently involved, so just drop me a line if you want me to get this party started. (p.s. Sorry I can't do this more discreetly, but my email program isn't really working right now. However, I am receiving emails, so you can use the link on my user pages. Danke fuer Ihre Zeit.) JHMM13 (T | C) 06:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Just leave a message on my talk page or email me the moment you're ready (you might want to answer the questions in advance just so you don't rush them). I'll have it rolling either immediately or within 24 hours after that. See you later. JHMM13 (T | C)

01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gryffindor. I wonder what the result of your inquiry with your admin coaches was. Go? No go? JHMM13 (T | C)

21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write up the nomination tonight and have it posted in a little bit. I'll let you know when I'm finished. JHMM13 (T | C)

02:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie of Belgium

My opinion is that since she never became empress (although she was a royal consort) she should be listed under Princess Stephanie of Belgium. Anyone who sees the page now, would think that she became Empress consort, and she didn't. Don't know if that helps, but there it is. I would definitely add this one to WP:RM, as this is likely to be controversial. As soon as I see it, I will drop by and cast a vote.

Have a great day, and I hope all is well. Prsgodd e ss187 12:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me again, I just figured this one out, I think. Since Thomas Francis, Prince of Carignano, was a member of the House of Savoy and he founded the House of Carignano, he should be Thomas Francis of Savoy, Prince of Carignano. We could put Prince at the beginning of all that, but I think that would be too much. I hope that helps. Prsgodd e ss187 12:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, how nice of you...

Thanks for the barnstar. You are truly the king of random kindness! --Mmounties (Talk) 22:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: question

Hi, Gryffindor. I think you're more than ready for adminship. You have been editing Wikipedia for over a year, have amassed more than 8000 edits as a solid contributor, are friendly and polite, and were familiar with most of the stuff we did in admin coaching. So go for it! I'll try to be one of the first to support if/when you accept the nomination. :) Good luck! Regards, Sango 123 (e) 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi Gryffindor. I wanted to thank you for taking the time to consider my RfA, which passed this morning. I have a thing about smiley faces, but pretend I have a {{User:Saoshyant/Userboxes/User oops}} on my page too, and please let me know if you see me doing anything wrong, with or without admin tools. Also, if there's ever anything I can help you with, just ask; you know where to find me. ×Meegs 09:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility Consorts

On Princess Viktoria Luise of Prussia, I agree. If her husband was not a "true" independent sovereign, then I don't think that the rule on consorts should apply. But on Princess Alice of the United Kingdom, I have a question. Was Hesse and by Rhine and independent grand duchy or were they under the sovereignty of someone else (Prussia/HRE/German Empire). If they were independent, then I think that they should follow the rules for consorts, if not, then no. Did that sound as good on screen as it did in my head???. I hope that helps. Let me know how thing turn out. Prsgodd e ss187 13:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure which line to take on these either, but obviously the proper procedure is for the person proposing any potentially controversial move to state his case, preferably before carrying it out. I've dropped him a line. Deb 20:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gryffindor, I have started a discussion at Talk:Hesse-Darmstadt. I hope you will join in. Thanks in advance. Charles 17:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schloss vs. Palace vs. Chateau vs. Manor

Please comment on the talk page for Chateau Schönhausen regarding which word best to use for small country Schlösser". Thanks. --Mmounties (Talk) 12:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Empress Frederick

Hi Gryffindor; could you please quickly lend your opinion here: Empress Frederick vs. German Empress Frederick? Many thanks. Charles 01:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Successful RfA

Thanks for your support and kind words on my recent RfA, which I am pleased to say passed with a final tally of 80/1/1. If you ever need any help, or if I mess something up as an admin, please let me know.

Cactus.man ✍ 07:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gomperz-Bettelheim

Hello! I made Caroline von Gomperz-Bettelheim. --Sheynhertz _געשׁ״ך 10:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks Gryffindor/Archive5

Thanks for your recent support on my RfA which passed 91/0/0. If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message! Gflores ^Talk 05:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Josepha of Austria

Done. Thanks for asking. I just sat down at my desk to begin my day of work when I say your message. I'm fine but in the middle of packing up the whole Kit and caboodle and moving to California, so I've been somewhat irregular these last two weeks and a little sparse with my contributions. I'll be back once everything's set up there. Hope all is well with you too. --Mmounties (Talk) 13:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, well my house was on the market for almost a year when all of a sudden I got an acceptable offer at the end of February. I didn't say anything at first because there still were contingencies and I didn't want to jinx it. :-) But yea, I'm going to be completely incommunicado once I pack up the computers for reason of trekking across the continent for about a week starting April 8. (That'll be interesting with the dogs...) Destination, Mission Viejo, CA. My other son lives there, the weather is nice and we'll be only about 9 miles from some of the most beautiful beaches in the world. Really can't beat that. --Mmounties (Talk) 15:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one you know will still attend Wake Forest University in North Carolina and only visit during vacations and when he's not visiting with his father in New Jersey. We don't know yet where he'll end up once he's done with school. His brother is already living in California so the puppies and I will be able to see at least one of them on a fairly regular basis. :) Definite last day online will be 4/6 (I'm turning in the modem, etc. on 4/7). And if all goes well, I'll be back online on 4/16 or 4/17. --Mmounties (Talk) 16:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, Princess Royal

Hi Gryffindor, gladly added my vote at Marie Josepha of Austria's page. Would you take a look at Talk:Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick and contribute a vote? Many thanks. Charles 17:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon royal ladies

That could be a tough one... Maria Josefa of Saxony was the daughter of a king, therefore she should be at Princess Maria Josefa of Saxony. However, reading I have done on pre-royal Saxony is unclear as to when the titles of prince or princess were assumed. She (Marie-Josèphe of Saxony) was most certainly a Duchess in Saxony, as all females of the house were, but the appropriate princely title is hard to accurately convey. Charles 17:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurfuerstin was a title only held by the consort to the Elector. It seems to me that a lot of the time, the childrens' titles didn't match that of their electoral parents. There were informal titles such as Kurprinz, etc, but those only seem to be used by the heir. Most of the issue of electors seem to be dukes or counts palatine. Therefore we have the Elector of Bavaria with children who were Counts Palatine of the Rhine but also Dukes of Bavaria. The same seems to be true with Marie-Josèphe of Saxony. If there were some marriage treaty to be viewed, it might clarify the issue a little. If not, I think she should be put at Duchess Marie-Josèphe of Saxony. Charles 17:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well for your vote at the page for Victoria (Empress Frederick). I posted more of my take on the title at Marie-Josèphe's page. Charles 17:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi there

^{copied from my talk page} thank you for still asking. I asked my two coaches just yesterday again, still no answer yet. Maybe they're sick and tired of me *lol* just kidding. They personally say I should be up for it, although I wanted another coaching session with them first. If you think I should give it a try anyways, well then I humbly accept :-) Gryffindor 10:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well just to be safe, perhaps you should do another coaching session and wait until the first week of April to show more good faith. I think you're worthy of being an administrator, but it would be nice to solidly convince everyone else of the same thing. So I'll message you around April 1st to see if you're ready. In the meantime, do what you need to do to round off the edges. Talk to you later, JHMM13 (T | C)

20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gryffindor. Sorry to keep you waiting. Some new scenarios have been posted to User:Gryffindor/AdminCoaching, so please feel free to take a look. :) Thanks, Sango 123 (e) 21:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Banes is currently on an extended wikibreak, so if you need to reach him, e-mail may be more efficient.

你好, Gryffindor. :) Responses posted. Thanks! Sango 123 (e) 00:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're ready. Please let me know as soon as your RfA is up! All the best, Sango 123 (e) 01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

Hello Gryffindor, I am writing because you are the most recent non-anonymous, non-bot user to have edited the article Leopold II of Belgium, which has been pointlessly vandalised by, as expected, an anonymous user, who has been a very active vandal for some time. Could you please take a look and see if the reversion I made is correct? I am not familiar at all with modern or contemporary Belgian-African history, thus I cannot be certain. But I did recognise the vandalism. Vale, Lcgarcia 18:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA nomination

Here it is. I have finally finished writing up the nomination. I hope you have the questions answered soon! When you do, post them on there, put the real end date at the top, and follow these intructions to get it posted up. Also don't forget to accept the nomination (if you haven't had a change of heart :-D). I'll be sure to tell my mom that the RfA is up and ready for voting. Take care, JHMM13 (T | C) 03:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you knew she's my mom. I got her started on Wikipedia back in January or so. Anyway, looks for now like your RfA will pass (barring any unforeseen mishaps...knock on wood). Good luck tomorrow as more people vote on it! JHMM13 (T | C)

07:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Just to inform you, you may want to fix the ending date and time for your RfA. joturner 05:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]