User talk:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel

Hello, Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, and

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Xiner (talk, email) 18:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for your edits to the Liszt article. Stating that he was Hungarian but of German descent I think reflects a nice compromise, and is probably the most accurate way of putting it. I'm not sure personally whether it's necessary to mention the descent or not, but given the debate surrounding it it's probably for the best. Thanks again. M A Mason 13:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gustav, I have left a message on the Huguenot talk page in response to your post about creating a category for people of British and Irish Huguenot descent. I havent yet created a category and will attempt to if you don't. Natalie West 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reducing the picture size on the Samuel Beckett article. Exiledone 14:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised that you voted "Keep per Runcorn"[1]. I did not vote to keep and would never have done so. I made two comments, both of them tending towards delete but did not feel strongly enough to vote.--Runcorn 19:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have created "Category:Jewish converts to Christianity" as an attempt to do an end-run around the deleted Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_19#Category:People_who_have_renounced_Judaism. Not only does this go against the spirit of the deletion, but the category you created was also deleted: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_8#Category:Jews_who_converted_to_Christianity Please do not attempt again to re-create these deleted categories. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Hirschell's father is always referred to as Hart Lyon in Britain, so far as I know. Both of these articles are on my list to expand. I shall restore the note about variant spellings of Hirschell's surname.--Brownlee 21:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to use the

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as the most recent and authoritative source; that calls him Hart Lyon.--Brownlee 11:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

As my move has prompted an objection, you might care to visit Talk:Music publisher (popular music) and cast a vote (hopefully against moving back) for the reasons I have given.--Smerus 15:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal to merge categories, as you suggest, is here. Please vote if you agree. --Smerus 07:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my stance to Weak Undelete, but I do not feel it is entirely substantiated. The arguments presented are well founded. At least, I feel that the discussion possibly does not belong here, but rather possibly in

NB: this is up yet again (May 14th)--Smerus 19:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ya. I didn't know there was such a thing as a London Borough of Marylebone. While I appreciate that you might be creating this category in complete good faith, it is somewhat unusual when the other London categories are related to some physical characteristic of the object under discussion, or the physical borough. I for one would be interested in hearing some kind of justication. Cheers. Kbthompson 23:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about Mori - I suppose it must have been George, but thank you for making me look again at the Pinto article which needed some tidying up. Cheers ---Smerus 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neither Pinto nor Salomon were Jewish.--Smerus 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not the slightest evidence that any of their ancestors were Jewish either.--Smerus 19:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly someone had a Sunday afternoon with not much to do. I have reverted Brahms and Mendelssohn - I guess the others will be looked after appropriately by their 'keepers' - best regards --Smerus 21:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G., I will leave the other pages - I have only one lifetime (if that)! You are welcome to deal with them yourself of course.--Smerus 08:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but don't read Polish....Viva-Verdi 18:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I'm not native speaker of any (British, American, Australian) English so I won't argue. Just don't forget to fix all links. Radomil talk 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the header to the whole article. I did not write it, but it lays out the purpose of the "list".

Anything else is pointless, so it has been reverted. Viva-Verdi 00:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You now have 2 editors who do NOT support your position of:

(i) Adding a performance venue which long-ago stopped presenting operas. The intro note says that "Opera Houses" not presenting opera ARE NOT INCLUDED. (The Khedive is something of an exception in that it burnt down, but it might just as well be merged into the present Cairo Opera House article with a reference link)

(ii) Adding additional info to an entry when all it is is a LIST.

Viva-Verdi 02:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out your old vote for you as is generally theway this is done on Wikipedia to show a changed vote. However, someone appears not to like me doing so [2], you may wish to revert them.

Various officers of the Royal Air Force (and I imagine other British officers) were awarded this award "with Palme" - does anyone know what that signified? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a palm degree concerns an acknowledgement for people who has been cited at the army level, and is in fact the french higher acknowledgement level for a croix de guerre... the other degrees are much more lower :

• a bronze star for those who had been cited at the regiment or brigade level.
• a silver star, for those who had been cited at the division level.
• a silver gilt star for those who had been cited at the corps level.

Sincerily user:Paris75000 11:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Yep you're right : in France, a palm is the higher acknowledgement for the Croix de guerre (it's mainly for heroic and single acts on the warzone) while in Belgium, their palm fot the croix de guerre meant it was awarded to a military person for action during wartime. This difference seems to be noted somewhere to draw correctly the line.

Sincerily user:Paris75000 12:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you are interested in the "people by former religion" topic ---> Category:Jews who have renounced Judaism. So, if you'd like to tag some articles with this category go right ahead. --Wassermann 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bother. As

WP:CSD G4. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for uploading Image:9th duke of marlborough.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did belatedly try to answer your question, but I didn't get there until about 10 mintues after the debate was closed. You can still find it in the apge history if you're really interested. David Underdown 12:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know this article but I'll look it up next time I'm in UCL library --Smerus 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stay (weakly) with delete for the moment as per my original rems; I'm still not convinced. FRGS in my opinion is noteworthy rather than notable, and I don't see anything in the military career to raise him above the usual - Aide-de-Camp by that stage was a meaningless post, given that the monarch hadn't fought in battle since 1692 (I suspect Vintagekits may be able to expand further on that little incident), and (as far as I'm aware) the Arctic Medal was a service medal rather than a gallantry/achievement award (I'm willing to be corrected on that). I do think we have to be careful not to go overboard deleting Arbuthnots, especially when Kittybrewster's blocked and unable to defend them; however, I also think we shouldn't go too far in being seen-to-be-seen fair to them. If you or I had written this article it would be unlikely to survive an AfD in its present state; I don't feel we should give benefit of the doubt purely because it's an Arbuthnot.

I've replied here rather than on the AfD itself, as I don't think it really adds to the discussion and I don't want to fan flames. Kittybrewster is certainly right about one thing; these AfDs are becoming unpleasant, and have a tendency to degenerate into slanging matches between the {{

Thanks for the notice; I'll still stick with keep. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear G von H, I note your edits to

Sehr geehrter Dr Humpelshmumpel! I think you are raving about something that has arisen unintentionally. According to the history, User:Angelstorm back in March found the present article (or its predecessor) under 'Music of England' and realised that this was nonsense, so moved the article to its present Folk-music title. The result of this is that the 'English music' and 'Music of England' titles have been left hanging as redirects to this article. The solution to this is for someone to take over the whole classification of 'English Music' articles and start writing them (see some suggestions I have made on that discussion page). It is not that 'English music' has been mischievously redirected and hijacked by the folk crowd, pigtails and all, but quite the opposite - the article titles you are interested in have got 'rolled up' in a sort of oubliette of discarded titles for the article which developed into the present folksy one. It is up to interested editors to rescue those titles and define their meaning anew for the great and fully English story in Wikipedia. Over to you?! Dr Steven Plunkett 10:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked further I begin to see your complaint - you should indeed require that 'English' music be permitted to define the classical English idiom. I'll add a comment in support to that discussion page. Sorry. Dr Steven Plunkett 11:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gustav. Please feel free to drop me a message if you have any constructive criticism regarding the move I made. I am always happy to hear from other users regarding my edits. Please just ensure that such criticism *is* constructive :) Rgds .. Angelstorm 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in (and I hope may wish to participate in) Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom - do please take a look. --Smerus 07:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gustli, The article on Classical Music in the United Kingdom is just as woful as the other one, in a different way. Well done for your efforts so far. I haven't started to add to project yet but feel I soon shall, just at present up to my knees in Harry Plunket Greene. Possibly I may attempt to rewrite/improve sections of the article mentioned above in the hope that it may generate useful concepts for subsidiary article titles or areas. At present it is scrappy to say the least. However I must also have a life. (Why? I hear a strangled cry), yrs Dr Steven Plunkett 16:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You supported the proposal to delete but the proposed deletion discussion was removed because the person who made the nomination was an alleged sockpuppet and has since been banned.

The original reason for the nomination was valid as the article clearly does not meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. On that basis alone I would ask you to resurrect the Articles For Discussion process so that the integrity of Wikipedia Content is protected.

As a member of good-standing you are able to reopen the discussion.

All I ask is that you act in the best interest of Wikipedia and judge the Mandrake of Oxford article SOLELY on its merits. thanks--86.147.169.220 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this amazing the family themselves [4] have only recognized thirteen member as being "famous" [5] yet we have to have here some 60 odd; I am tempted to email "The Hon Historian, of the Arbuthnott Family Association - "who will welcome corrections, additions and constructive suggestions" and see if s/he has a clue what is going on here. I also note the Arbuthnott site clearly states [6] that "The site (Kittybrewster's) is not subject to the control of the Association and the Association specifically disassociates itself from the site".

There it is in black and white- a list of Famous Arbuthnots! I think we can reasonably use this as a guide for Wikipedia as it is from such a prestigious source which clearly has in depth knowledge of their subject. But wait! KittyBrewster has made a larger list (what a surprise!)- including "Convicted Criminals (non-petty)"! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not upload this unfree photo. We have many free photos of Sarkozy. David.Monniaux 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not upload any picture of Sarkozy? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, sorry, mistook you for a guy that insists on uploading his official photo (done by a professional private press photographer). David.Monniaux 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied in in my talk space - Tiswas^(t) 16:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followed up on my talk page. DGG 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your edits- I lived in Keith Marischal House for 15 years. It is a mongrel building, with earliest parts dating from the 15thc., and extended by the 6th and 7th Earls Marischal. However the final stage of building there was carried out by Mr. Skene Tytler in the mid to late 19th c. by Peddie and Kinnear of Edinburgh with craw step gables, faux turrets ie baronialised in the Scottish style. Admittedly plain in comparison with certain other buildings revamped at this time, such as Duns Castle, the SB motifs are certainly there. Regards Brendandh 19:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The house was bought in the 50's by my step-grandfather at a knockdown price, the farmer was going to take the roof off, as property was taxed then on the size of the footprint of the building, a roofless building didn't count! He bought the House and its immediate policy (approx 10 acres). When I lived there, it was in the oldest part the tower dating from 15thc., and following a leak in the roof and resultant cave-in of the ceiling in my bedroom, found contemporary panelling behind the plaster. The trusses and rafters in the attic are reputed to be that timber that was given to the 5th Earl by the King of Denmark for his part in James VI's nuptials. With these construction materials he turned the tower of Keith into a dwelling around a courtyard. If you look at the KM page the first photo [Image:Keith front.jpg] (taken by me), shows the wings on either side with low windows to the inside of each wing. All the construction in between is 19th c. Above the left hand door on the second floor you can make out the curved tower of the original turnpike staircase for the tower, much obscured now, the 19th century faux turrets are hidden behind the trees. Unfortunately the earliest photographs of the house were made following the renovations in the 1880s, but there are saine records held I think in the Register house in Edinburgh relating to the aspect of the house on its sale to the Skene Tytlers in the 1870/80s. Hope that's useful. Brendandh 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Ps my mother has done a huge amount of research upon the house, and its occupants with a view to writing a book about it at some point. I might use some of that to ad to your article if that's ok? Cheers[reply]

Apologia

Jaysus, I must have been close to nightnight when I wrote that! I think I've fixed it tho' Slan Brendandh 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a discussion of Jeronimo Bassano's Jewish origins to his page. You are right that Dr. Ruffatti has written against the idea that the English musician Bassanos were Jews. However, Prof. David Lasocki's book contains a chapter that comes to the exact opposite conclusion (Ch. 6). I decided to say that there is disagreement on the issue, and provided a Bassano descendant's views on why it doesn't make sense that the Bassanos would move to London at that time as practicing Catholics. For goodness sake, anyone who knows about Henry VIII knows the problems with this. --139.80.18.108 00:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffati may have a stronger case. I would like to see the documents he references (I read Italian). Nonetheless, just because you personally want to believe he has a stronger case does not mean there is no difference of views. In order to keep the article NPOV, you have to present the views of both sides. David Lasocki has an alternative point of view. Next time I am in Italy visiting family, I'll head over to Bassano del Grappa and have a look at these famous "alcuni documenti" and see if they are as definitive as you think they are. In the meanwhile, I'll see if I can get hold of Ruffati's article and find out exactly which documents he cites and why. --139.80.18.108 22:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reverting my edits and engaging in extremely inhospitable and POV behavior, Gustav. I have asked others to review your edits on Jeronimo Bassano and Lanier family tree. Since you are abusing your power as an editor, I am going to stop making any edits, since you will obviously erase whatever I write. No sense wasting my time. I hope the complaint gets through to you what I have been trying to point out all day.--139.80.18.108 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Crossposted to assorted "people I've run into and whose opinions I respect")

I realise it's totally outside your field, but if you get the chance could you take a look at the article on Broadwater Farm I've recently created? I do think it deserves it's own article - yes, it might be most famous for events that happened 22 years ago, but having it as a redirect to Broadwater Farm riot seems to me as ludicrous as redirecting Germany to World War II or Northern Ireland to IRA. However, now I've set up incoming links it's likely to be a beacon for POV-pushing, so I'd like to get opinions on (a) what a NPOV will be on something like this where the two POVs are likely to be diametric opposites, (b) whether you think it can/will ever be stable (and whether it's worth trying to keep stable) and (c) how much of a focus ought to be on the riots as opposed to the place itself. If any of you feel the urge I'd also appreciate anyone who feels able/willing putting it on their watchlists, as I suspect it's going to be heavily vandalised & spammed — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not accusing *you* of having some sort of ideological vendetta against the peerage; your contributions speak pretty clearly otherwise. But I think you're being a bit naive about 1) the success of summary style and 2) the value of challenges to notability. I thought the summary style was a good solution for baronets because most of them are individually non-notable, and it seemed like a good compromise between the "keep" and "delete them all" factions. That said, when even as dilligent a contributor as Giano can't be bothered to summarize individual articles before redirecting them ([7] [8] [9]), it doesn't look like much of a compromise from the "keep" side, does it? I don't see any reason why this would be different for barons, viscounts, etc. if your test case is successful. Moving on to notability, in an ideal world, yes, it would be best if all questionable articles were politely queried for notability, their authors brought forth evidence and sources and improved the article, and so on. In practice, there are certainly people out there who view challenges based on

I hope that you don't mind me adding my tuppence. The notion of umbrella protection for any category of articles is against the spirit, if not the letter of Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Articles must be judged on their own merit, and not on the merit of related work. If anything, such umbrella protection would only work within the confines of a list. That's not to say that it would not be prudent to discuss the inherent notablity of minor and major nobles, of which the current discussions are no doubt a precursor. We would then have a benchmark that articles would have to reach (c.f elected officials versus also-rans, at various levels of government, as a corollary). It should also be noted that deletion is not permanent, and editors may always revisit articles to bolster the case for inclusion. - Tiswas^(t) 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This messege

anyone can see the previous warnings, admin or not--they do not get removed from the page history. Most admins check this & if you think one isn't, just remind him--but don't embarrass him too much because we are always supposed to do that as a matter of course--kb is not the first person to try that little trick. DGG 09:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you offer your view on his talk page as to whether he was a PC. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be nice to sepperate by country since my master plan is to have a global list seperated by continent and then country eventually. But we don't have to and I may be a little too ambitous. lol

Well i think professional is the key word. As in the performers are PAID working professionals in the field and people pay for tickets. I wasn't thinking of including amateur community groups and things like that. I was hoping to include companies like

Nrswanson 16:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

That's an issue for the

village pump, or WP:IUP talk page, and not one to be proven or disproven in the article itself - Tiswas^(t) 12:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Without wishing to exploit my innate talent for pedantry,

manual of style

- specifically:

*Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:

• • On images with extreme aspect ratios
  • When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
  • When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region
  • On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.

Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.

In respect to the article in question, I do not believe that any of these exceptions apply (c.f. the Blenheim Palace article, which is a panoramic view) - Tiswas^(t) 12:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the quote is from a discretionary guideline derived from policy. Thatr doesn't mean that we simply

ignore it. The lead image should most probably be set at a larger than default width, as per established guidelines (notwithstanding the fact that thumbnails become messed up within infoboxes) - The other images should be thumbed, in accordance with these guidelines. - Tiswas^(t) 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't get me wrong - I'm inclined to agree with you, in principle, in that landscape images may be better served with a larger default pixel width. There are other considerations, however. Using the thumb default means that each user sets their preference, making potentially contentious images sizing moot - you or I, or any other editor may want to force the images in the article to a certain width, in order to satisfy our own aesthetic viewpoint, which may, or may not, be commensurable to other editors'. The guidelines are there to guide, and, despite not being as binding as policy, are a measure of established consensus. If we do ignore any rules, we need to make a case for ignoring them (although I do not mean to imply that you are not already doing so), and see that the rules are updated accordingly. - Tiswas⁽t) 13:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't imply consensus from perceived action or inaction on the part of other editors - There are no unwritten rules - Tiswas^(t) 13:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to see how the current wording was arrived at per Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/Archive_8#Forced_image_size. Tyrenius 02:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you to be incorrect in assuming and advising others that a decision on one AfD alone represents a universal administrative decision applicable throughout Wikipedia whereby editors may bypass the AfD procedures at will and to suit their own agendas. David Lauder 08:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think that would be very contentious indeed. --Counter-revolutionary 09:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see Category:Streets in Camden and Category:Squares in Camden, both within London Categories. I'm not saying you're wrong, but consistency across the project would be nice. (One of the reasons for sticking streets in transport, is to link them with their A-roads, another project I know nothing about). Cheers Kbthompson 11:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find Bus stop's editing as childish as you do, but leave it for now. I believe that Drumpler (and the other editors, possibly), will bring his behavior to official attention. There should be no more edit warring over this, no matter how ridiculous this is getting- if Bus stop wants to throw a tantrum, let him. He is clearly in the wrong, so there is no issue.--C.Logan 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting ready to say the same thing, but you beat me to it. :) Drumpler 14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted a report on User:Bus stop on the ArbCom page here. As an individual who was involved in this debate, your participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Drumpler 17:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for the intrusion: what is "Humpelschmumpel"? Regards, El_C 10:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorthand for El Commandante. El_C 11:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All those who dared call me megalomaniac, and those who probably would! El_C 11:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gustav,

Youv'e removed these from Gordon Brown, but in fact they are official titles that are taken on by the Prime Minister, so perhaps they should stay?

Also, the fullm official title is "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain" (and it may also extend to include "and Northern Ireland" - although I'm not sure about that)

They may not have been on Tonys wikipage, but he had those jobs too! Regards, Lynbarn 00:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they just clutter the introduction imo. If someone clicks on Prime Minister of the United Kingdom they will see what other titles go with that. Yes, i do see what you mean. You could also remove 'the current just before Member of Parliament for..., as that is redundant too. Regards, Lynbarn 00:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not force image size -

Can we not remove the second example? the link will be available from the constituency in any case, or could be be added as [[Member of Parliament|Member]] of [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]] Regards, Lynbarn 23:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*First of all, can I ask who you are/what your position is regarding telling me what I can/cannot do on Wikipedia?

• Secondly, the information I wrote on Gordon Brown's personal life is pretty much factual and I have also added the sources where appropriate
• Thirdly, if you look at my work, you will see I have put a considerable amount of time and effort into writing articles for Wikipedia and do not like being spoken to in this way. In fact, I would like to know how I may report you to a senior contact ref. your authoratarian comments Ivankinsman 19:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has Gordon Brown got a glass eye or not? this seems repeatedly to keep coming into and going out of the article willy-nilly...can we please make a decision about whether it should be there or not? and then tell everyone thanks Peter morrell 06:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply BUT I'm afraid that Guardian article does not even mention glass eye at all! I just checked it and no mention of a glass eye...I think we need to pull that specific point from the GB article. thanks again Peter morrell 22:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reson for the name is the last line of MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fromowner. The reason for the gender is that that people were complaining that the previous version of replace this image one (now at Replace this image male.svg) look silly on the female articles and the gender neutral ones were not aesthetically pleasing.Geni 18:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fromowner does not tell you how to place the image in the article and I have no wish to overload MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fromowner. Says who would be various people on IRC. You are free to draw a geneder neutral image (in SVg format idealy) that doesn't suck.Geni 20:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Your revsions have no consensus on wikipedia. Aditionaly I didn't make the switch or create the image which would normaly suggest some level of support.Geni 20:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gustav.

I just posted this on my talk page, but in case you're not monitoring that, here it is again:

Thanks for your note. I think it is important to use the decade rather than the year when the year is not known. Using a specific year in those circumstances is simply not correct, based on the knowledge we have. It implies a precision that isn't there (and in most cases never will be there). And different sources sometimes give different estimated years. Since yearly categories (like "1745 births") have direct links to the decades ("1740s births"), if you don't find what you're looking for on the first try it is actually easier to check the more general category than it is to check the one or two years on each side of the specific year. That will happen if you're working from a source that gives a different estimate for the year than we have in the article. And besides, these are precisely the circumstances for which the decade categories were created. Suppose you know the year is not known exactly; you're likely to go directly to the decade category.

There are quite a few of these approximate dates (around 10% in the decades I've looked at). I am not aware of a convention on this, although there may be one I suppose. It didn't seem very controversial to me. Perhaps you could share your arguments for the other method, both as to factualness and usefulness.

Cheers, --Rbraunwa 23:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chill, Gustav, I've warned 65.54.154.152. One more and he's out. If you get similar from other IPs and would like your pages

Update: I've blocked him. Bishonen | talk 09:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ah... just so. Colourful. 65.54.155.36 is now also blocked, but there are more of them as you know, so I'm semiprotecting both your pages for now. Let me know if/when you'd like the protection lifted. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, about this image. It was listed at

Only the San Vidal branch has died out. The San Giorgio and Albergo branches are still active. Paolo Barbaro is not a recognized member of either branches. The San Giorgio's even have their own page on Wikipedia Marchesi di San Giorgio. The article as it stands now is way off base, and it is written by people that are not knowledgeable about the complexity of the Barbaro family, it would probably be best to delete the whole Barbaro family article, than leave it with such gross misrepresentation.

There was a previous article written about the Barbaro family that was very good. I would bring that one up and just flag it as needing citations, that previous page was very explanitory and accuarate with the best sources on the topic. The sources used on this current article are not recognized by experts of the Barbaro family, and that 1960's, 1970's source is not up to date with current scholarship.

There are also problems with the dates because there are more than one Marco Barbaro and Ermolao Barbaro too.

• (diff) (hist) . . Sir Hugh Arbuthnot, 7th Baronet‎; 15:43 . . (-2,307) . . Giano II (Talk | contribs) (rv)
• (diff) (hist) . . Sir Robert Arbuthnot, 6th Baronet‎; 15:43 . . (-2,258) . . Giano II (Talk | contribs) (rv)
• (diff) (hist) . . Sir William Arbuthnot, 3rd Baronet‎; 15:42 . . (-2,139) . . Giano II (Talk | contribs) (rv)
• (diff) (hist) . . Sir Robert Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet‎; 15:42 . . (-2,668) . . Giano II (Talk | contribs) (rv)

• Whats the deal dude? It was very clearly decided at AFD that Arbuthnott is notable on account of him being a Baronet. Why keep directing somebody who the community has decided is notable? Jcuk 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to salvage

I'm very sorry! I thought that it was another user who had written the section on Jazz flute, I seem to have left an explanation of why I got rid of the article on another talk page. It was discussed on the talk page under comments, I believe. The reason for it was that it was made up of the writer's (presumably your) opinion about how jazz flute should sound. Jazz can be played on a flute with clean, crisp sounds just as much as dirty tones. Since you seem to have the article saved, I'm going to remove it again and we can work it out on my own or your talk page, if you wouldn't mind. Again, I'm very sorry, I thought that the writer of that article was saxstudios. Thanks for taking the time to read this, --Sorcerer of words 15:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said "many" historians, not all and I never said it was a myth just that the practice of it is disputed. Please don't remove sourced material. Trevor GH5 11:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This message is to inform you that the forumer Direktor is a well know propagandist of tito-style propaganda on the internet. He has been banned from other forums because of his harrassment against italians in Istria and Dalmatia. He has used other nicknames and WRITES ALWAYS IN A SYNCHRONIZED GROUP WITH OTHERS, who support him. He always writes to be of distant italian roots in order to obtain support for his harrassments (he often identifies Italians in Dalmatia with fascists), and writes even to be a "not nationalist" while he promotes fanatically the tito yugoslavia with many lies and deceits. An Italian forumer born in Istria.

Hi, you keep removing the category 'Murdering doctors' from the Bertrand Dawson, 1st Viscount Dawson of Penn page. The subject in question hastened the death of his patient because, in his own words, onlookers were getting bored. He also wanted the king to die so it could be reported in the Times the next day. How is this not murder? It's not even close to euthanasia. What is your reasoning here?Malick78 14:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop remving sourced info. The fact is the practice was rarely used and many historians are skeptical as to its existence. I have provided sources, and will provide more this weekend. The next removal will be considered vandalism. Trevor GH5 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gustav,

You recently removed the Fair Use image in Velociraptor, stating it wasn't fair use because it's not a Jurassic Park article. Fair Use images may be used outside of articles about movies, and in fact this article contains several paragraphs discussing the treatment of Velociraptor in the Jurassic Park films, which is why the rationale correctly stated "the image is being used in an informative way, to illustrate the portrayal of Velociraptor in the movie contrasted with current scientific reconstructions of the animal, and should not detract from the original work... This image illustrates the text next to which it appears, which describes a notable portrayal of the dinosaur in question."

These are clear examples of Fair Use in full compliance with the

]

Warn 3RRV - Marlon Brando

Three Revert Rule

Please take this to Talk:Marlon Brando, put both images side-x-side, and let people vote on them.

Thanks,

IP4240207xx 08:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we perhaps compromise on this article... a long, long list of external links to all the various sites owned by the company is not encyclopedic, violated the "Wikipedia is not a web directory" standard, and ends up serving as valuable linkfarming fodder for those sites to rank higher in Google than they otherwise would. If the goal is to inform readers here of the various sites the company owns or runs, might I suggest simply listing them in paragraph form without links? DreamGuy 14:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gustav, actually until you mentioned him, i don't know if i've heard of F. Scott Fitzgerald before.--Celtus 04:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Smythloan (talk · contribs) another HarveyCarter sock? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gustav von Humpelschmumpel! We seem to have yet another problem with a racialized "Latin" template, I'm speaking of Template:Countries with Latin Populations (Talk). I've tagged as OR - could you comment please? Thank you. The Ogre 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

There was a discussion on the Village Pump a while ago that led to a consensus not to use scrolling reference boxes in articles (feel free to use them in your userspace, if you like). Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you delete the two discussions? Or are they archived somewhere? Do people often delete entire discussions? I am sensitive to those who don't like being identified as Jewish --if given the choice I wish I wasn't French, Irish, Spanish, Italian, and English-- but it is somewhat absurd to create a discussion that tries to erase the Jewish ethnicity of Sarkozy.Pistolpierre (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought it was not right for you to delete both discussions. It is not right for you to call me a troll either. There is plenty of POV pushing in both discussions by people who call me racist. Those same people push their ridiculous POV that ethnicity does not exist for Jewish people, but does for Saxons and Irish. Why are you starting an edit war? Why don't you archive the discussions if you are concerned that they are unsettling? I don't enjoy being called a troll and obviously certain people don't like the fact that Sarkozy has Jewish ethnicity. Even though I think it is ridiculous that the discussions should be archived, I wouldn't object considering people are paranoid that a discussion about Sarkozy's ethnicity leads to racism. I can understand the fear even though I think it is overblown. Perhaps it is best to archive both discussions. I've never archived anything before, I'll try to figure it out. Feel free to do it yourself. Pistolpierre (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your ongoing attention to this matter. The best solution may be longterm vigilance over the concerned articles. Edits of banned users can be undone/reverted without further justification. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. It may be worth writing a

An article that you have been involved in editing, Murder of Meredith Kercher, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Meredith Kercher. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to Greenwich. With a little more work I think this is ready to submit to GA, there are a few notes on the talk page - you might wish to revise these with your own suggestions. I would value your input. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His mo is quite unmistakable by now, Harv's back on the Marlon Brando, James Stewart, James Dean beat. Check them out. Bzuk (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Actually you're wrong, and who is Harv? Thank you Gustav for restoring good edits. Oh and "Bzuk", I haven't touched Dean's page. (92.8.159.121 (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You can see only a partial face in the picture. I don't think such an ambiguous (is that even really Freddie?) picture has any encyclopedic merit. Also, the image has currently been tagged for deletion, as the uploader never provided any source for the image. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we even know it is legitimate? The uploader never provided a source for the image, and it was his/her first edit on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't even aware of our image policies. It is probably a good-faith upload, but you cannot so easily judge that the user took this picture. Also, please remove the licensing you added. The uploader needs to confirm the licensing, since it is not clear. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed that part. I still don't think it's an appropriate image for the article. As I stated before, it's not really clear who is on the far right in the image. I'd rather have accuracy than a free image which may or may not be of the subject. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know? You see less than half of Mercury's face in the picture. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can do about improving the resolution of this picture. Please be patient!!! User:Colin_Marks 01:52, 27 January 2008

Apparently it's not against policy for users to blank their own user talk comments (

Ah okay. Well this is already the first warning after the block so any more inappropriateness should probably be met with a block. What we're expecting here on Wikipedia has been spelt out pretty clearly to him. Kelvinc (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say where it says no fair use in infoboxes. I reverted your edit. Secret ^account 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Secret, As long as you provide a non-free rationale (which you have already done), then there is no problem here.Boab (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

Thanks for your response, I have replied on the Watson page, but I did remove the bit about me ranting as I considered it a personal attack (all personal attacks can be removed per

WP:NPA). Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry if the distinction between yourself and what you utter is difficult. I'll find a way to offend you less.
--Jerzy•t 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I've now looked at what you did.
I recommend to that you

1. Carefully (re-?)read
   the important note attached to it
2. Clear your mind of anything you may remember from the now officially rejected and aggressively deprecated essay
   Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks
   .
3. Contemplate the importance of the editing community being able to rely on the accuracy of signatures in reflecting what someone said, and the context it had (which is crucial to establishing its meaning), including the time when it was said and what else was said in the same edit.
4. Do the right thing, promptly, as i am 15 minutes from being late for a commitment which will require me to leave this keyboard.
   --Jerzy•t 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   

Your removal of material i contributed on the page in question is reverted, and i have made an effort to meet your concerns. If you also had misgivings about "utterly unfounded insinuation", please let me know.
My recommendations above stand, and are now asserted more urgently than before.
--Jerzy•t 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you've no doubt noticed, an editor has been making extensive revisions to this article. Do you, perhaps, have access to the Alvise Zorzi books (Venice 697-1797 and Venetian Palaces) that he's using to "source" these edits? A Google Books search for "Venice 697-1797" +Barbaro turns up only three mentions of the name in that book, none seeming to support the information the editor is adding to the article, using that book as a source. And as the editor continues to make a plethora of edits, revised edits, and re-revised edits, the article seems to be approaching the region of unverifiability and looniness that we know so well from the past. (I'm just waiting for the first mention of Vitus Barbaro to appear.) If it can be shown that the cited sources don't contain the information he's adding, I'd like to nip this thing in the bud. Deor (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it, Gustav, but I don't want to give too much away where anyone can see it. I have e-mail enabled on my user page if you're interested in finding out more. Deor (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to see

the first blast of the trumpet against monstrous Barbarolatry, go here. (In case you've forgotten—and who wouldn't want to?—this woman is, according to our old friend User:F550 [the Barbaros' "professional geneologist"], the mother of Vitus Barbaro himself.) I wish there were some truly effective way of dealing with people like this; they cause far more disruption and damage on Wikipedia than thousands of youngsters who confine themselves to adding "he is gay" or "POOP" to articles. Deor (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Nice catch. The same author added a claim to the Skull and crossbones page. When I requested sources, he added two, which turn out to be blank pages. [10] Edward321 (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really, why don't you just punch in a search for "Ruffo di Calabria skull" which should lead you to a page "Nieuport 17" mars.ark.com/-mdf/N_17.html/ that will show you the white plane of ruffo with his skull emblem. You are all foolish people that look to destroy and spread lies-good bye!Mctrain (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figured I'd come to your talk page about this edit: [11] Please read

Hi Bobbble. As you can imagine, I seriously disagree about removing set image sizes. I spent over an hour getting the layout of images on the Obama article to look decent. Different images have different properties and significances that require them to be sized differently to each other. This is the way it is in every single print publication and many major sites. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your comment and do appreciate the effort you put into positioning the images and getting them just so, but unfortunately as a featured article Barack Obama has to meet the guidelines and MOS set by the community. One of those happens to be that setting images size is unnecessary except in certain circumstances. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, ignore all rules does not really apply to featured articles. If you have a problem with the image size MOS, I suggest you take it up here. I've gone ahead and reverted your changes since you aren't going to. Please don't re-add the forced image sizes. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include the name Binyamin Ze'ev Herzl in the article Theodor Herzl, you need to cite a source which proves that he, somehow, used that name. Harry Barrow (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Gustav! Happy new year! Thanks for the alert... a worthy subject. Slightly tied up right now but will see what I can find. Hope you're flourishing, best wishes Eebahgum (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le offerte per questa inserzione sono terminate - 0 offerte - haha! Didn't you buy it? Then we could have had an illustrated article! I used to know Great Portland Street, but I have been away from London so long I have forgotten. Near the BM, isn't it? I keep seeing St James's Hall mentioned but have no real conception of it. It must have had an organ and that will be in a big book somewhere. But the management history will be the thing. I will take notes as I go along and contribute whatever I can. This is an eventualist project. I notice straight off there are 11 page refs to St J's Hall in Elkin's book on the Queen's Hall, so I'll look at them in a sec. Eebahgum (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from that source, but probably more in his other book on the RPO. I must go for some tea, arrange/edit the data however you think best, I'm just tapping it in for you! Eebahgum (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gustav, Thanks for inviting me in on this article, as it were. I'd like to see more on the Richter/Subscription concerts section, and there needs to be something about the London promenade Concerts (pre the Queen's Hall proms), but it is looking quite a substantial article now and a very useful addition. Hope you're flourishing, Eebahgum (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St James's Hall , 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 .

--Victuallers (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How lovely to have your message. I have been in extremis since yesterday and wanting to run away from some of these people who don't seem to know the difference between a synopsis and a dissertation, and want positively to inflict rules everywhere. God it is hard work here sometimes! Well done on the DYK by the way, that's great. I am planning to have a holiday in WP:Latin. I believe it's quite quiet there!!!!! Will be great to hear what you can find.

BTW, I looked at that reference for Sims Reeves being born in 1818, as cited in C Pearce's book, which you footnoted there ages ago. He certainly does explain the source for that statement (I bought the book on the basis of your comment!!!) BUT, first of all, that 25 October is a baptism date not (necessarily) a birth date. I've been doing quite a lot of home genealogy lately and certainly around 1800 the dates could be quite far apart, specially in London. Secondly, it was quite common for children to die young, and then for another child to be given the same name as a kind of 'replacement', so that is another possibility (I don't assert it, just mention it). Then there are problems with that earlier date, not least that his voice could not have broken until he was 16 if that were right, whereas there are direct statements that it broke when he was 12. I know this earlier date has been accepted, but it does seem odd that he even had a clear idea that his birthday was a different day as well. I shall continue to be a heretic about this until someone can convince me! Best wishes for this weekend, Eebahgum (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

Last year (07 June), I behaved toward you in a very rude manner. You and another user had communicated on the Tony Blair talk page in what I took to be general chat rather than discussing improvement to the article. I chose to criticise this behaviour by referring to it as “stupid”(!) On the principle of ‘better late than never’, may I now offer you my heartfelt apologies for my appalling incivility. I am very sorry (and very embarrassed) by my boorish behaviour. I have also apologised to the other user whom I insulted on 07 June. I am not normally given to this kind of conduct and I really do not know what came over me. There is simply no excuse.

Regards, Conval (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes he's an English bass but that was indicated in the other cats. The one I deleted was redundant. Thanks for your understanding. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link because fan/unofficial sites are not suppose to be included in the external links section (see

Thanks for the heads up. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know fan forums aren't allowed at all, but awhile back, I was semi-involved in a dispute over a fan site being included on the Jayne Mansfield article. From what I was told, fan sites, unless approved, aren't suppose to be included. It seems to be one of those rules that some people enforce and some people don't mind. I actually don't mind including tasteful fan sites, but there are so many that are tacky, copyright violations. Plus, there's people who use Wikipedia to promote their own fan sites which can be bothersome. I tend to leave fan sites for old stars because they rarely have official sites and unofficial sites can be helpful. As for the Tyrone Power website I removed, I was in a mood and just removed it without even looking at it. My fault entirely because after looking at it, it seems ok. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can get beyond the current pattern of moving images back and forth. Please note that the Manual of Style says: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location." I don't doubt that you've been editing in good faith, but please take this Manual of Style into account. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please join in the discussion at the John McCain talk page? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)I just wanted to make sure you're aware that a request has been made for Peer Review of the McCain article.[12]Ferrylodge (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here. [13] Edward321 (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: [14]. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The only bad actor was James Stewart, who played every character exactly the same with that annoying fake voice of his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.245.126 (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice.I just went ahead and said in the Keith Richards' article that he was of remote French ancestry.I hope it's ok to do it.I'm a big Keith fan and always wondered why nobody commented on his mother's French maiden name.Had it been Italian,Polish,etc. people would have mentioned it.I know the Huguenot contribution to the London gene pool is enormous( I once read that one out of every four white Londoners has Huguenot ancestry).There is also a lot of Huguenot ancestry in Dublin and Belfast not to mention the USA.jeanne (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Kemal's father was named Ahmed Rıza, at least according to the Turkish Wikipedia article

It seems to me that

Given the birth years of this Ahmed Rıza, he cannot be the same Ahmed Rıza as the father of Ali Kemal. You mentioned "brother"; do you have any indication that Ali had a brother named Ahmed? I don't have sources for any of this information beyond the Wikipedias, but clearly there has to be some close connection between Ali Kemal and the Ahmed Rıza referred to in the

Of one thing I'm fairly sure: the image at

Both the Turkish Wikipedia and this article state that Ali Kemal's original name was Ali Rıza. Given the large number of Ahmeds, it is not at all unlikely his father was named Ahmed Rıza.

As you yourself added the sentence mentioning accusations against Ahmed Riza Bey, does the source not give some indication of how this relates to Ali Kemal?  --Lambiam 23:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any source that indicates a familial relationship between Ali Kemal and the Young Turk Ahmed Rıza, so probably there was no such relationship. I found a webpage (unfortunately not a "

If you feel inclined to mail the author of the Mavi Boncuk blog, please go ahead. It is rather plausible that his/her source is Ali Kemal's autobiography Ömrüm (Edited by Zeki Kuneralp), İsis Press, İstanbul, 1985.  --Lambiam 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the author is named Mehmet Ali Munir,[16] which is a man's name.  --Lambiam 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please stop reverting the ermolao barbaro (bishop) (see also) section- section does not say the "elder"- it is relevant to viewers who may not be aware that there is more than one ermoalo barbaro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.141.156.238 (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear it up obviously when I uploaded it I had no idea about the new commons images. I've tagged it for speedy

You really should stop arguing with yourself :> --Jack forbes (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been making some attempts at archiving old talk on the Barbaro family page, I have tried the cut and paste method, and now I tried the move proceedure. I just don't get how to do it properly. If you could do that for me, that would be great. I thank you for your helpMctrain (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, I saw the photo on your personal talk page with the boats at twilight hour. That's great, did you take that? Are you a photographer?Mctrain (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your new alter ego: Humperstink (talk · contribs)

IP4240207xx (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just came accros that the article on Ermolao Barbaro is double in the WP: yours and another as Ermolao Barbaro (bishop), Maype you can just mingle them. - Lyonski (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CarlVenneANDBarackObama-May19-2008.JPG You asked on my talk page if I took this picture myself. Yes, I did. I have many photos that I took during Senator Obama's appearance on the Crow Indian Reservation. I live 70 miles south of the reservation and drove up for what I knew would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. You asked if I could upload the Venne/Obama photograph at a higher resolution; I do not know how to do that. I am not a professional photographer, just an ordinary citizen lucky enough to have been standing in the first row in front of the podium with my Samsung 8.2 mega pixel camera from WalMart. So what I uploaded is what I have. IreneWyo (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your instructions on my Talk Page, I have located and uploaded the uncropped version of the photograph. It is 3264 x 2448 pixels. I have named this uncropped image:

CarlVenneANDBarackObama-May19-2008-Large.JPG

I have several other photos I took of Senator Obama at the Rally, and a couple of profiles as he is shaking hands with people turned out very well. Let me know if you need them.

IreneWyo (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the

Thanks for adding the photograph. I've been trying to work it out for ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LorenzoFanatic (talk • contribs) 12:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some robot has deleted a perfectly good category that I made a few months ago, Bateman's Great Landowners (1883). John Bateman's book is a masterwork, but apparently not to the puritan, ignorant, socialist, and time wasting gnomes that control the animus that is wikipedia.Rodolph (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Humpelschmumpel,

Your intervention stating that being a descendent of Charlemagne puzzles me... The descendance from this great prince has allways been a source o great pride to the European nobility.

Robert Prummel (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have been instructed that the image of McCain at the Academy MUST face into the text. So, it must go on the right, not the left. Does that mess things up on your screen?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gustav. I saw you asked about the categories for this article at Wikiproject climbing (then withdrew it - because you noticed the project is moribund perhaps?). Anyway, to offer an opinion, mountaineering is normally taken to mean moving over difficult terrain, using skills beyond mere walking, such as rock climbing or using ice axes. So if he was just walking along a path near the top of a cliff and slipped, I'd say "mountaineering deaths" probably wasn't appropriate. Admittedly there's a fairly large grey area there depending on exactly what he was doing.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how the fact that walking in the mountains is a risky activity excludes him from the "accidental deaths" categories which you removed; being accidental doesn't imply that the activity that led to it had no risk - we talk about road accidents, even though driving a car has an element of danger. In fact, if something did have no risk, it wouldn't be possible to have an accident while doing it. That said, Category:Accidental deaths from falls does strike me as a rather odd category - is there such a thing as a non-accidental fall? Surely "non-accidental falling" is better known as "jumping" or "being pushed"? Regards Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 16:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gustav. Thanks for the reply. I agree that Category:Accidental deaths from falls would probably be the best one, I was just mildly amused by the apparent tautology of its name. Not really amused enough to take it to CFD and get it renamed though. Incidentally, I did a bit of Googling and walking in the mountains isn't actually all that dangerous. In fact, there's some evidence that even outright rock climbing may be statistically safer than, say, horse riding. Makes you think. :-) Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm touched by your faith in the accuracy of director's dates of birth as recorded by Companies House. IME, an article by 'some journalist' is of equal reliability to the records of Companies House. I'm not going to revert your change again, but I suspect that others may do so. Remember, it's not our place to determine what is correct when there is doubt as to a validity of a fact - we should cite both sources and let the reader determine which one they trust more. YMMV. DrFrench (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gustav. This might be of interest. http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=159505198 Rodolph (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Duff Cooper.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

.

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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted licensing on image File:Oscar Wilde tomb Jacob Epstein.jpg

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Oscar Wilde tomb Jacob Epstein.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of James Kendrick Pyne

The article James Kendrick Pyne has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable musician

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. OCNative (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Warehouseman

The article Warehouseman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John Blossett

The article John Blossett has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I have looked on Google for references but have failed to find any.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Plum3600 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Radovan Karadzic 2008.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]