User talk:AndreaMimi

Hello, AndreaMimi. You have new messages at SoWhy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome!

Hello, AndreaMimi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

PeterSymonds

@PeterSymonds

Many thinks for your greetings. I'm very happy.

I wish you a nice weekend. With the best wishes

--AndreaMimi (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbon Parma

Hi, AndreaMimi,

I've reversed the sex change you made in Robert I, Duke of Parma (Augusto -> Augusta) simply because I have a reference (which I've added) that shows the child to have been male, not female. If the source is wrong, feel free to make the change again and add the source that supports it (though if sources are in conflict, perhaps we will need to point this out in a note). - Nunh-huh 14:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. In all the books you can read, that the last child was a girl, not a boy.

For example in the german book: "Maria Theresia, Kaiserin Elisabeth and Zita - die großen Kaiserinnen". On page 107 you can read the name Augusta (1882-1882) in the family tree.

And you can watch the German Wikipedia. There is also the Name "Augusta".

--AndreaMimi (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly not all the books you can read, as The Royal House of Stuart, London, 1969, 1971, 1976 , Addington, A. C., page 32, also gives "Augusto" and not Augusta. - Nunh-huh 14:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the book, you give to me. But it was a girl and not a boy. I have also refereces like you.

Look here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_I._%28Parma%29

--AndreaMimi (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've edited the format of the reference you gave in the article so it showed up correctly. (I removed the reference to the German Wikipedia, as we don't use Wikipedia as a source!). - Nunh-huh 14:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't built the article in the German Wikipedia, but if you understand a little bit German, you can see the history of the article. And the references. There are so many books, like yours, with the name Augusta.

And the silbling before her was also a girl Anastasia, born and died 1881.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources that give different facts, we tell the reader that, unless it is clear one or the other is in error. Since it is not (at any rate, not yet) clear which fact is in error, we report both. - Nunh-huh 14:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's find another references to know what's right. ;)

That's a joke.

I see, that article is okay now. Maria Pia (1849-1882) died, when she give birth to her last child.

With you corrections, people can find both facts and belive what the want.

I wish you a very nice day. --AndreaMimi (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be nice to know which is right, but I suppose that may be impossible. As long as we do not mislead by being certain, I am happy :) I wish you all the best in continuing to improve our historical articles. - Nunh-huh 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friends

It's possible to make a friend list ? So you can see, which users are helpfull. For example you.

I'll change something on my user page - put a photo in - and come back a few minutes later.

Sorry, my english is not so good as yours. --AndreaMimi (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can list friends on your talk page, or on your user page, or on a sub-page of your user page, like User:AndreaMimi/Helpful links and friends. No one will mind a "friends" list, but people would be upset by an "enemies" list! Your English is perfectly fine. You can let people know what languages you have by putting a "babel" box on your user page... like this one... {{Babel|de|en-3|pt-1|es-1|nl-1|fr-1}}. You just have to list the language and level you have. - Nunh-huh 17:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Nunh-huh

Thank you for your help. I'm very happy.

You are right with the babel box.

I speak German (mothers tongue), English, Spanish (basic level) and Latin. And understand some words in Italien from some summer holidays.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've played with the picture syntax so the picture shows, and done other things to your user page. You'll want to pick a better caption than the one I gave you, I think... and you can play around with the page until it's the way you like it. - Nunh-huh 05:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Nunh_huh

It's so great. I can see the picture. I'm very happy. Many thanks to you.

I wish you a nice sunday. --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help :) - Nunh-huh 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

First you have to upload your picture. There should be a link labeled "upload file" on this page (under "toolbox"). Click on it and upload the picture (let's call it AndreaMimi.jpg). Then to put it on your user page, you would type [[image:AndreaMimi.jpg]]. But you may want to control the size of the picture and where it is (right, left, center). To do that, type [[Image:AndreaMimi.jpg|300px|thumb|right|This is the caption for the picture.]] - Nunh-huh 17:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Nunh-huh

Well, well. I understand your informations. And try to find the right picture. The size is not the problem. I use the picture on other pages too and it's very small.

Don't be scared, when you see my picture. ;)

I loaded it up. You can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AndreaMimi.jpg

I have a last question: How can I post the pictur on my user page, that you can see it ?

--AndreaMimi (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:AndreaMimi.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Picture - Autum 2006.jpg. The copy called Image:Picture - Autum 2006.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can display the image with [[Image:AndreaMimi.jpg|thumb|Some caption text]]. Staecker (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Staecker

Sorry, you come to late. :(

Now I can see my picture perfectly on my user page.

I wish you a nice sunday, too. --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail

If you enable your e-mail address (on your preferences page) or send me an e-mail from my talk-page (click on "E-mail this user"), I would be happy to send you all the information I have on the Von Trapps. I don't like to post information about private living people on Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 14:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Nunh-huh

I'll send you an/a e-mail as soon as possible. I'm very interessted in the story of the Trapp Family.

And wish you a nice evening. --AndreaMimi (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

von Trapp children

Very nicely done. There's another way to do tables in Wiki (your way is fine, but I find this syntax easier to remember (just |- for a new row, and || between columns) (I'll past it here and you can look at it by editing your talk page.)

Name	Birth	Death	Notes
Rupert von Trapp	1 November 1911	22 February 1992	married 1) 1947 to Henriette Lajoie and 2) to Janice Tyre and had issue. (two sons and four daughters from his first marriage)
Agathe von Trapp	12 March 1913		works as a singer and an artist, now lives in Baltimore, Maryland, no issue.
Maria Franziska von Trapp	28 August 1914		works as a singer and missionary in Papua New Guinea, now lives in Vermont, no issue.
Werner von Trapp	21 December 1915	11 October 2007	married 1948 to Erika Klambauer and had issue (four sons and two daughters)
Hedwig von Trapp	28 July 1917	14 September 1972	worked as a teacher, lived in Austria and died of asthma, no issue.
Johanna von Trapp	7 September 1919	25 November 1994	married 1948 to Ernst Florian Winter and had issue (three sons - one stillborn - and four daughters)
Martina von Trapp	17 February 1921	25 February 1951	married 1949 to Jean Dupiere, died in complications of childbirth and had issue (a stillborn daughter)
Rosemarie von Trapp	8 February 1929		works as a singer with her family, later as a missionary in Papua Neuguiena, now lives in Vermont, no issue.
Eleonore von Trapp	14 May 1931		married 1954 to Hugh David Campbell and has issue (seven daughters), she lives with her family in Waitsfield (Vermont)
Johannes von Trapp	17 January 1939		married 1969 to Lynne Peterson and has issue (one son and one daughter)

The guide to the syntax is here. - Nunh-huh 11:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "sandbox" is a place to play around with things (new syntax, tables, etc.) where it won't annoy anyone, and where generally other people won't edit what you're trying out. You can make your own sandbox by editing User:AndreaMimi/sandbox. I added a link to my sandbox on my talkpage just so I won't need to remember its name or type it. - Nunh-huh 11:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your compliment, Nunh-huh. I'm very embarrassed.

You are very helpfull and right. Syntax is better to remember. I'll go to the link, read it and try it on the next article out.

With the best wishes. --AndreaMimi (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:AndreaMimi.jpg

Image Copyright problem

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change the informations. This is a photo from me. I have the copyright.

Thank you for your message. I wish you a nice day. --AndreaMimi (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding the above message, you need to add a tag that shows either that you release the imageinto the public domain or that you release it under a free licence. I recommend that you add either {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Obviously, since you uploaded it and added it to your user page, we can assume that you're happy for the image to be in your user page, but on Wikipedia we don't allow images outside of article space unless they are validly tagged to say either that they are public domain or that they have been released under a licence that allows others to re-use, re-distribute, modify, and sell. I've changed the date of the tagging as missing copyright, so that you have a few more days to add a licence without worrying about it being deleted. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry. My english is not so good. I unterstand, that there are problems with the copyright by my picture. I try to change it. It's very complicated.

See you. --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove article

Hi Andrea, sorry for delete my article from your talk page, but i made a mistake : i think you're deleted my corrections about the article of Ferdinand i of Two Sicilies (children), but when i look again i was wrong!!! oops!!! sorry!!!. I delete my article because i was write wrong things. I offer you a total apologize for this. Thanks and sorry for mi bad english!! Aldebaran69 (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aldebaran !

Thank you for your message. Your english is very good.

It's very complicated with Ferdiand I of Two Sicilies and his children. ;) Many of the died in childhood. He had twins born 1783, who also died in childhood. And 1875 was a son in January born and a daughter in November.

I wish you a nice day. --AndreaMimi (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Puppet woman

A tag has been placed on Puppet woman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Shovon (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Shovon76

Oh I see. Do you speak German ? If you do, please look on the Salzburg Wikipedia. You can find an article about the puppet woman. She is a very famous person and does her job since 1987. Many people know her and talk with her.

http://www.salzburg.com/wiki/index.php/Marionettenfrau (with pictures)

I think the puppet wife is more relevated, then for example a child from the House of Hesse-Darmstadt Marie (1874-1878), who died at the age of four.

I don't understand one detail. You have removed the article, but I can write something on the talk page ? --AndreaMimi (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:800px-Marionettenfrau.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:800px-Marionettenfrau.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image is free. I made the picture in October 2007. And allow you to use it on the article to the puppet wife (Marionettenfrau).

I hope, I understand your text in the right way.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What shall I do ? There is no article about the "Marionettenfrau" (puppet wife), but I make an article in the Salzburg Wikipedia.

Do you speak or understand German ? I'll give you the link to the article, you can see pictures from the puppet wife there.

I hope, I can put an article about her here too. --AndreaMimi (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comma

Please read Comma (punctuation). It explains when and where to place a comma. DrKay (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no comma's before the word "and". In English and in German too for example. I wish you a nice evening and a nice weekend.--AndreaMimi (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true for English. DrKay (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not alter text within quotation marks without checking the original quote. Punctuation should generally follow the original source. DrKay (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Kay

I have never used in an english sentence a comma before the word "and". It looks "not well", but I accept it.

What shall I do ? ;)

What do you mean with the quote ? Sorry, I don't understand this. If I had done something false, I will correct it by myself.

Yours faithfully. --AndreaMimi (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you altered was:

Albert Victor "had been involved in a male brothel scene, and that a solicitor had to commit perjury to clear him. The solicitor was struck off the rolls for his offence, but was thereafter reinstated."^[1]

You shouldn't alter quotes without checking the original source, in this case James Lees-Milne, who was a professional writer and native English speaker, and, one presumes, therefore perfectly capable of writing in his own language. DrKay (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are persisting in this. You've just altered two direct quotes again. "Probyn, Montagu and Knollys" to "Probyn Montagu and Knollys" was clearly inappropriate. There is always a comma between the first and second items in a list of three items. Your obsession with removing commas is frankly getting ridiculous. DrKay (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that removing the commas actually alters the meaning of the sentence. "The Parque Eduardo VII in Lisbon, King Edward Avenue, a major thoroughfare in Vancouver and King Edward Cigars" means that there are four things named after Edward:

The Parque Eduardo VII in Lisbon
King Edward Avenue
a major thoroughfare in Vancouver and
King Edward Cigars

Whereas, "The Parque Eduardo VII in Lisbon, King Edward Avenue, a major thoroughfare in Vancouver, and King Edward Cigars" attempts to convey that there are three things named after Edward:

The Parque Eduardo VII in Lisbon
King Edward Avenue (a major thoroughfare in Vancouver) and
King Edward Cigars

Similarly, "Queen Alexandra with her mother, Louise of Hesse-Kassel, and her eldest daughter Princess Louise." means that there are two people: 1) Louise the mother and 2) Louise the daughter. "Queen Alexandra with her mother, Louise of Hesse-Kassel and her eldest daughter Princess Louise" could be read as meaning that there is only one person: i.e. the same person is both her mother and her daughter. In this case it is obvious that they are in fact different, but consider a sentence like: "Edward wrote a letter to King Haakon VII of Norway, his nephew by marriage and his son-in-law." Now does this mean that he wrote three letters: one to Haakon, one to his nephew and one to his son-in-law? Or does it mean that he wrote one letter to Haakon, who is both his nephew and his son-in-law? In circumstances like these it is better to restructure the sentence—removing commas actually makes the sentence worse by increasing ambiguity. MA (Cantab) (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do explain it to me ? I learned in school, there are no "comma" after the word "and".

You can write the sentences better, to avoid the "comma" before the word "and".

I wish you an nice day and a nice week. --AndreaMimi (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Whoever told you that in school was flat wrong. You are changing the meaning of the sentence. Note: "Just a few weeks later, he died in an influenza pandemic and Mary married instead his younger brother" means that Mary married his younger brother just a few weeks after he died. Whereas "Just a few weeks later, he died in an influenza pandemic, and Mary married instead his younger brother" means that he died a few weeks later and Mary went on (two years later) to marry his younger brother. DrKay (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to form this sencene so: ".... he died a few weeks later. And Mary went on to marry his younger brother."

I learned in school - Austrian - that there is no "comma" before the word "and".

But I don't learn the correct form in English. I think, you are right.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit: [1] proves that you removed commas from a direct quote. DrKay (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were not taught an incorrect version of English but just a variation. The form you were taught is the same one that I learned in school in the United Kingdom during the 1960s and 70s. We were taught that a sentence should be "...DrKay, AndreaMimi and CambridgeBayWeather..." was correct but that "...DrKay, AndreaMimi, and CambridgeBayWeather..." was incorrect. Today both forms are fine. The best thing would be to leave any commas in the article if they are already there but if you are writing a new sentence then construt it as you think looks best. You might want to look at Serial comma and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Serial commas for some ideas. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that only applies to serial commas. I don't mind if you removes them, they're irrelevant. But you are also removing commas separating parenthetical clauses. These damage the meaning of the sentence and render it unreadable. DrKay (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, why are "commas" before an "and". That's not typical for a German Sentence, but I think, it's usual in the English language.

I looks not good on the "paper" the "comma" before an "and", but that's my personal oppinion. ;)

I wish you a nice weekend.--AndreaMimi (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte

Zwischen vollständigen Hauptsätzen, die inhaltlich eng miteinander verbunden sind, wird ein Komma gesetzt, auch wenn die Teilsätze durch and oder but verbunden sind.

Kommas werden verwendet um unabhängige Sätze von einander zu trennen und um drei oder mehr Wörter, Phrasen oder Hauptsätze in Folge zu trennen. [2] [3]

Verwenden Sie bitte ein Komma zwischen zwei Hauptsätzen, die dadurch getrennt werden and oder but. Danke schoen! DrKay (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Kay

Schon gut, ich habe verstanden. *verlegen*

Übrigens: Sie können mich ruhig duzen, in der Wikipedia ist das - auch in der deutschsprachigen Version - so üblich.

Ihre Deutschkenntnisse sind sehr gut.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen. --AndreaMimi (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spaces

You appear to be adding spaces. I think you should know that web browsers compress multiple spaces into a single space, so any such edits will have no effect on the way an article is displayed. Edits like these are deprecated because they soak up server time without actually having any effect whatever. DrKay (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but I don't know, what you with "spaces" in this case mean. Please explain it slowly to me.

Thank you. --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should approach from a different direction. What are you trying to achieve with this edit: [4]? I can't see any differences. DrKay (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, what you mean. I want to change the "commas" before the words "and", but there are no commas. That's ok now.

I wish you a nice weekend.

Sorry, my answer come late.--AndreaMimi (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest...

...that since you are clearly not a native speaker of English, you might want to refrain from editing English Wikipedia, especially when it concerns matters such as punctuation, which are difficult enough for those who call English their primary language. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed Fitzgerald

Yes, you are right. English is not my mothers tongue. I learned it in school and passed the a-level with the mark "C". But my english is not as well as yours.

My mothers tongue is Austrian. I'm from Austria.

I wish you a nice evening.

Thank you for your comment here. --AndreaMimi (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kommunikationsprobleme? Sagt mir Bescheid, wenn's was zu vermitteln gibt. Aber ich muss erst einmal auch sagen, hör lieber auf die Englisch-Muttersprachler, die wissen schon, warum sie die Sachen hier auf en-wiki so und nicht anders geschrieben haben wollen. Wenn du Fragen darüber hast, kann ich's dir wahrscheinlich erklären. Zum Beispiel mit dem Komma bei "and" ist es tatsächlich im Englischen anders als im Deutschen. Im Deutschen darf man kein Komma setzen, im Englischen kann man, ist eine Stilfrage, aber in vielen Fällen gilt es wirklich als besserer Stil. (Und natürlich ist auch richtig, dass in wörtlichen Zitaten sowas auf keinen Fall geändert werden darf, egal ob's richtig ist oder nicht.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Übrigens, noch was, würde es dir was ausmachen, die Liste deiner "Feinde" von User:AndreaMimi/Helpful links and friends zu entfernen? Solches Abstempeln von anderen Benutzern wird hier nicht gerne gesehen. Wenn du die Seite nicht mehr brauchst, kann ich sie auch einfach komplett löschen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einen Moment bitte mal. Ich sagte doch gerade, hör bitte auf die englischen Muttersprachler und halte dich an die hier üblichen Stilregeln. Du bist ja immer noch dabei, überall "Hon." to "Honorable" auszuschreiben. Mir persönlich ist das egal, was da richtiger ist, aber wenn dir ein Muttersprachler sagt, die Abkürzung ist in der Form konventionell, dann bitte hör damit auf, das besserwisserisch überall zu "korrigieren". Außerdem hast du mit deinen wiederholten Änderungen mindestens auf einem Artikel (Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine) gegen die Drei-Reverts-Regel verstoßen. Wiederholtes revertieren gilt grundsätzlich als sehr unfein, mehr als dreimal in 24h führt normalerweise zur Benutzersperrung. Also hör jetzt bitte damit auf; wenn du solche "revert wars" weiter fortführst, müsste ich dich zeitweise sperren. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect

Nanu ? Was macht ein deutschsprachiger User im englischen Wikipedia ? Ich finde das ungewöhnlich.

Das mit der "Feinde" Seite kann ich gerne ändern. Ist kein Problem.

Ich dachte, gerade weil eben Leute hier sind, die kein bzw. nur wenig Englisch können, verstehen die Abkürzung Hon. (für Honorable - die Ehrenwerte ?) nicht, daher schreib' ich das Wort besser ausführlich hin. Ich hab' das ja am Anfang selbst nicht gewusst, wofür die Abkürzung Hon. steht. *verlegen*

Nun verstehe ich, was du meinst. Und halte mich in Zukunft daran, versprochen.

Hab' noch einen schönen Abend.

Nachtrag: Ich würd's ja gerne ändern, doch ich kann nicht.

Kannst du das bitte öffnen, dass ich auf meiner eigenen Seite was anderen kann ? Das wäre fein.

Von wegen "müsste" sperren. Du hast es ja schon getan. --AndreaMimi (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You continued revert-warring contrary to all warnings and requests, so I've had no choice but to block you. 24 hours. Please do not resume this behaviour when the block runs out or you'll be blocked for longer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sag's ruhig auf Deutsch, du kannst ja Deutsch, das weiß ich.

Ich würde gerne meine "Feinde" aus der Liste streichen, doch das geht leider nicht.

Nachtrag: Ich weiß schon, welche Liste zu meinst. Doch da sind meine Freunde, nicht meine "Feinde" drauf.

Dann ändere ich - sobald ich das wieder kann/darf - den Titel in "friends" (Freunde) um, damit das deutlich erkennbar ist. --AndreaMimi (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Habe nun alles geändert bei der Freunde Liste. Wenn du willst, nehme ich dich auch dazu.

Später kümmere ich mich mal wieder um das Ordnen der Stammbäume von den Adelshäusern hier. Vom "normalen" Format in ein übersichtliches Tabellenformat.

Da kann ja nichts schiefgehen, oder ? ;)

Und die "und" vor den Beistrichen lasse ich wie sie sind. Ich überlese sie einfach. --AndreaMimi (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children/Issue

Hi AndreaMimi. I know that English is not your first language, but when we are talking about genealogy in a formal way, 'issue' is the correct word for 'children'. Please stop changing it on the Prince Philip page, and on any other pages where you have made the change.

I really don't want to be rude, but it's usually a bad idea for someone whose English is not very good to tell native speakers what words actually mean. "Issue" is the correct word. Period. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 21:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you are right. I don't want to have a fight with you.

It's nice, that you post on my talk page and not on the talk page of somebody else. ;)

"Issue" means the same like "children". For example look here: http://www.pons.de

There I find the words.

I wish you a nice day. --AndreaMimi (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kelly Family's article

The site you mentioned ([5]) says that Barbara-Ann was born in 1946 and that Danny, Caroline, Kathy and Paul's mother is called Joanne. There is even a photo of her! So why do you keep changing her birth year to 1940 and removimg the part about Dan's first wife? G51 (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site also takes the the book from Peter Wendling from 1995 as an ressource. Mr. Wendling wrote, that Dan and Barbara Ann had 12 children together (but it can be a mistake from Mr. Wendling). The first child Danny was born 1961. (look there on page: 21/22).

So the book is a good ressource for this article. I hope, you accept it.

Then I will accept you opinion too.

I wish you a nice evening. --AndreaMimi (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of accepting opinions, because these are not opinions, these are facts. All good sites about The Kelly Family say the first four kids are Dan and Joanne's, and all of them say Barbara-Ann's birthdate is 2 June 1946. I have copies of some of the Kellys' birth certificates and Barbara-Ann's birthdate is there. She wasn't born in 1940. And the first four kids are not hers. No matter what your book says, because all online resources say otherwise.

References: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

G51 (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@G51

The Kelly Family Site (German) - your third link there - has the books from Mr. Wendling and Mrs.Reinhard as ressources. It can be possible, that the authors are wrong with their informations about the Kelly Family.

I don't know the others links. I will go there and read it.

This link http://members.lycos.nl/Fallenangel/Kellys/history.html

says that Barbara Ann died two weeks after Angelos birth.

It's the best, to ask the members of the Kelly Family himself/herself, to get the correct facts. ;)

--AndreaMimi (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the date of Barbara-Ann's birth, not her death. And about Paddy, I'm not the one who wrote about him having a daughter. As far as I know he lives as a monk in France. As for the rest, Barbara-Ann is not the mother of the first four children and she was born in 1946. I obviously won't be here all day every day reverting your changes, but I will revert them every time I see them. G51 (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said: The autors, which are "my" ressources are wrong. The books are from 1995. So they must be wrong.

But whats about Paddy ? I read the links , that you give me , exactly and I can't find anything about a wife or a daugther.

As far as I know, it's not allowed for a monk to have a family. But I'm not sure in this case.

I'm very happy, when you give me a link to Paddys "daugther" too.

Thank you for the links in your first posting here. You are very helpfull.

I wish you a nice evening. --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martina von Trapp

Hi AndreaMimi, why did you create this article with an AfD template at the top? Surely you didn't mean to nominate it for deletion, did you? Was this information copied from somewhere? Regards, Accurizer (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's my mistake. I will put the AfD away.

Thank you for your help. I wish you a nice weekend.

Can you help me with the article about Hedwig von Trapp ? I can't see the link. --AndreaMimi (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened. You must have used Rupert von Trapp as a template and the version you copied from had an AfD template on it. The outcome of that deletion discussion was to keep the article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert von Trapp). The AfD template should be removed from the top of the articles you have been creating. I'll help. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Accurizer

You are right. I used Rupert von Trapp as a template and compied the table to the other articles.

I removed the AfD template from the articles about: Rupert, Hedwig, Johanna and Martina.

Now I can put the correct link to Hedwig von Trapp.

Rosemarie, Eleonore and Johannes' article followed in a few hours.

Your's faithfully. --AndreaMimi (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the problem. The article title was not capitalized correctly. I moved it; let me know if that rectified the problem. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Accurizer

You have solved the problem very well. Many, many thanks for you.

I'm very happy now. --AndreaMimi (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! It's been my pleasure to help. If you need anything more please don't hesitate to ask. I hope to see you around again. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Accurizer

I'm very sorry. I want to write the articles about Rosemary (1929), Eleonore (1931) and Johannes (1939) today - or at this evening, but I'm very tried. And have no time next week to write.

I have ressources anough for the articles. That's no problem. ;)

I'll write the articles as soon as possible.

Good night. See you. --AndreaMimi (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures from the Trapp Family

Here are some pictures from: Agathe, Maria Franziska, Hedwig, Johanna and Martina.

http://www.archives.gov/northeast/boston/exhibits/von-trapp.html

Is it allowed to put them in the articles ?

I can see, that somebody used the picture from Maria Augusta in the article about her from the same link.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AndreaMimi, the answer to your question is on a FAQ page on the National Archives' website, here. Since you are working on articles in the World War II era, you may also want to look at Wikipedia:Public domain#Example cases regarding German WWII images. Although this concern does not apply to the von Trapp images that you asked about, I thought you should know about this copyright concern regarding similar images in the National Archives. I hope this helps. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, another thought. I saw you embedded an external link to the image in the article's infobox. This won't work, the image needs to be uploaded first and then wikilinked. See Wikipedia:Uploading images for information about how to do this. (It is the same process you used to load the image for your user page.) I removed the link from the infobox (and made a few other minor changes). Regards, Accurizer (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Accurizer

I'll look at this page, to ask for the copyright for this pictures. Thank you for your help.

If it's allowed, I will upload the pictures here and put it in the articles.

I wish you a nice day. See you .--AndreaMimi (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

May I reproduce images from your web site?

The vast majority of the digital images in the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) are in the public domain. Therefore, no written permission is required to use them. We would appreciate your crediting the National Archives and Records Administration as the original source. For the few images that remain copyrighted, please read the instructions noted in the "Access Restrictions" field of each ARC record.

Please note that a few images on other areas of our web site have been obtained from other organizations and that these are always credited. Permission to use these photographs should be obtained directly from those organizations.

I look there, it's allowed to use the pictures, if I understand that right. National Archives and Records Admininstration is the ressource.

I'm very happy. --AndreaMimi (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I put the pictures with the source National Archives and Records Adminstration to the articles about: Agathe von Trapp, Maria Franziska von Trapp, Hedwig von Trapp, Johanna von Trapp and Martina von Trapp.

But I have no pictures from: Rupert von Trapp, Werner von Trapp, Rosemarie von Trapp, Eleonore von Trapp and Johannes von Trapp.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martina von Trapp

I spent a good hour translating that from poor English into proper English. I'm wondering: why did you change it back into poor English? To a native English reader, the article is now almost incomprehensible.

I've reverted because I think Wikipedia should be written in good English and should be properly formatted. I don't think that's much to ask. Your reversion makes me wonder if you assume you have ownership of some kind over the article. --NellieBly (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add a few comments: there is no reason to put the birth and death dates for the other children in Martina's article. It disrupts the flow of the prose, since all that punctuation distracts the eye. It's also completely unnecessary: just link to the articles created for those children. Also, Martina was most certainly NOT buried beside her stepmother and siblings. She died before they did. They may have been buried beside her, but she was most certainly NOT buried beside them - they weren't dead yet. You can't be buried beside someone who isn't dead yet. In English that sounds very, very strange. --NellieBly (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you change all the informations in the other articles about Rupert, Hedwig and Johanna ? I built they in a very hard work ! And spent much time with them. I give all ressources there, that good articles need.

The link to Martinas silblings (and back from they to her) are VERY nessecary.

Martina is now buried beside her stepmother, her father and her silblings: Rupert, Werner and Hedwig. Her father died 1947, four years before Martina. That's correct.

I don't know, where Johanna is buried. Some ressourches say "in Vienna", others say "in Vermont". Her widower Ernst Florian Winter (b. 1923) is still alive. He works as a farmer in Ost-Tyrol (Austria). In July he gave an interview to a small newspaper in Austria. So I know, what's about.

If you use the ressources - books (also in english, but I read the German) and weblinks - , that I gave in the articles, you can see, that's the truth, what I write in the articles.

You destroy my work with your words.

We can work together, that's ok. But I made the articles and I can revert they too !

What's about the link to the pictures ? Is it allowed to use it from this link or not ? What do you say ?

English is not my mothers language. I give my best to write, but's not enough for here. You are right.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Agathevontrapp.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Agathevontrapp.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 criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Martinavontrapp.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Martinavontrapp.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 criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Mariafranziskavontrapp.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Mariafranziskavontrapp.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 criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Hedwigvontrapp.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Hedwigvontrapp.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 criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Johannavontrapp.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Johannavontrapp.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 criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ressources are here: http://www.archives.gov/northeast/boston/exhibits/von-trapp.html

It's allowed to take the pictures from there. I give the ressources to the images. You can see they there.

That's ok. --AndreaMimi (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Could I remind you of WP:CIVIL, and ask that you make a particular effort to follow it. In your recent interactions with User:UpDown you do not appear to have taken the time to be civil.

I would also remind you that;

You do not WP:OWN any article, no matter how much work you put into it. Your attitude towards the Upstairs, Downstairs article seems to indicate a degree of ownership of the article, and a suggestion that people need to work with you if they wish to edit.
Whilst you can most certainly delete comments from your talk page, attempting to ban somebody from your page is a nonsense.

Mayalld (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@UpDown

What have you done ? I forbid you write anything on my talk page. Is that clear. !

You can't listen to me, so you have to go. I try my best - Maylld - but I can't talk with UpDown. He said, that I can make a table in the article UpstairsDownstairs, but he don't recognize that.

Go away.

I can ban everybody from my talke page, who is rude. --AndreaMimi (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here seems to be that you regard anybody disagreeing with your edits as rude. I really suggest that you attempt to work with other editors, as if you decline to do so, and persist with this silly "banning from your talkpage" thing you will be blocked from editing. Mayalld (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why you and UpDown destory all my hard work ?! That' very rude.

I give my best to built the tables in this article and noboby says "well done" or anything else. That's not very nice.

It's not silly, to block bad user from my talk page. UpDown also clear my messages on his page, so that's also allowed for my to clear what I want.

I try to put the tables in a right way. --AndreaMimi (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you worked hard on something isn't in dispute. Unfortunately, despite your hard work, the tables weren't done correctly, and didn't look good. The goal is to create an encyclopedia, and that may mean that well-intentioned, but poor, contributions cannot be kept.

Feel free to delete content from your talk page, but can the silly "bans" Mayalld (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why you clear the tables, when I put them in a correct form now ? Look at the article, I used the correct form from the wikipedia here.

I can do what I want on my talkpage and you on yours. --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we both have to abide by policies, and you are playing a very silly game if you think otherwise.???

Who are you ? Where is your signature ?

I play no game - what do you think - I only say my opinion. --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Please do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Upstairs, Downstairs. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. Please use the proper syntax for tables Mayalld (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the table in a correct form now. Like the other tables here. I hope, it's correct. --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayalld

Why can't he accept, that his comments are not important for me ? I delete all his comments.

I think's that's not your problem, when I have troubles with him. Look at your articles and leave me alone. I will remove your comments too.

Don't work with him together. --AndreaMimi (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayalld

I said: "I also delete your comments here". Why can't you accept that ?

I have troubles with UpDown, but that's not your problem.

You are not an administrator. --AndreaMimi (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that you delete his comments here. That is your right. That does NOT mean that you can ban him from making those comments.

You must accept that he can likewise delete your comments on his talk page, and leave them deleted when he does so.

Your troubles with UpDown have spilled over onto the article talk page. Where that happens, it is the problem of any editor who choses to become involved.

It is not relevant whether that I am not an admin. I don't need admin tools to become involved. If the situation requires admin intervention, I will involve one. Mayalld (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayalld

I corrected the tables in the article UpStairs Downstairs and I hope they are correct now. I used the Wikipedia form, that you give me.

I ignore UpDown. And he me too. I think, that's the best.

You are very helpfull.

I wish you a nice day. --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Upstairs, Downstairs, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayalld

Ok, I'll do my best to make a "minore edit" by this article, when it's correct.

And I'll make an edit summary too.

Thank you for your help. I wish you a nice day. --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

At Lighbot, you wrote

What's your problem ?
Why do you correct some unimportant things in articles, that I prepared with important tables ?

Lightbot doesn't have a problem, apart from not enough money. Can you give me an example of the page with the tables that was edited by Lightbot. We can look at it together. Best wishes Lightmouse (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbot = Lightmouse

You are the same user.

You edit only the articles, that I worked before. That's a very big problem for me.

I think you have something against me.

Stop to change the articles. --AndreaMimi (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say

"You edit only the articles, that I worked before."

I don't understand. I also edit other articles.

I have nothing against you. Relax, we are both on the same side.

Lightmouse (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that you correct articles, that I built/correted myself and you destroy my work.

But it is a mistake.

You work as hard as me.

What do you say to the tables, that I correted in the articles about the royals ?

I'm very interessted in the royal houses. I think you too ?

I wish you a nice weekend. --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tables are very nice. You have done good things for Wikipedia. Please look at what I did with Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden. I have corrected the dates. They were in two formats (day, month, year AND month day, year). They are now in one format (day, month, year). I have also removed the date links because they make it difficult to see the important links. Lightmouse (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm very happy.

You do also a good job, correted the dates in the article about Gustav VI Adolf of Sweden. Now, they are looking very well.

I try to give my best, to correct other articles with tables too. There are so many incorrect articles.

I will be a hard work. ;)

See you. --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can do any article with one click. I use code. It is easy. Do you want the code too? Lightmouse (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightmouse

Do you mean codes for a table ?

I need them. The are very important.

Or do you mean other codes ? --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean other code. The code will test dates in the article. Go to User:AndreaMimi/monobook.js and paste

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

into it. Press 'Save page'. Then clear your cache using the instructions on that page. Then go to an article and press 'Edit this page'. Look in the 'toolbox' on the left below 'What links here' and you will see a command 'Full audit to dmy'. Press that command and it will check the dates. It will find errors and fix them. Let me know if you need help. Lightmouse (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help in this case. I try it out and than I will asked you, probably for a little help.

I wish you a nice Sunday. --AndreaMimi (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria and her issue

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Victoria of the United Kingdom. Thank you. Road Wizard (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Road Wizard

My edit on this homepage was very small. Only the dates in the table. I put the links there. That's all. --AndreaMimi (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is all the more reason to add an edit summary. If you are fixing dates then put an edit summary of "fixing dates". It helps other editors to know what you are doing so they don't have to check what has changed. You should include an edit summary on every edit you make. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Please remember that single digit numbers should be spelled out per MOS:NUM. I have had to revert you twice on this issue now so I would appreciate an explanation of why you are editing against guidelines before you convert the numbers again. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Road Wizard

Oh, that's what you mean.

I find out, that Queen Victoria never outlived her great-grand children. Some of them died in childhood or in there early years, but all of them after 1901. On great-grand child was born and died 1901, in May not in January like his (it was a boy) great-grandmother.

So I correct the article.

Thank you for your help with the numbers. I don't know that before. Sorry, that's my mistake.

I wish you a nice Sunday . --AndreaMimi (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting you

I now reporting you. Despite being told by more than one editor, and shown the guideline - MOS:SYL - you are still adding date links. Date links are being removed across Wikipedia and you should not be adding them in.--UpDown (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@UpDown

It's personal !! You destroy my hard work !

Please leave me alone and never destroy my work again !!! --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personal - its WP policy on date links. I am also concerned regarding "my work" - strongly suggesting you feel ownership over the articles.--UpDown (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say: It's personal. You don't like me, so you destroy my work !! I'm right. Why can't you accept that ?

I never destroy your work. You have not the right to destroy my work.

There are so many articles with linked dates. I think thats allowed. --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the link MOS:SYL. They were "allowed" and hence why many articles have them. But the policy has changed and they are now being removed. I am not destroying your work and its not personal. Thats a very bad attitude to have on Wikipedia.--UpDown (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I havn't read the link that you give me. It must be new.

Why are the links now removed ? I don't know the reason.

It looks better, when they are there. But: This sentence before is only my personal opinion and not the offical. --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is new, as I have said. Despite me showing you the link several times, you still reverted without looking at it. Very worrying.--UpDown (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You havn't answered my question: Why are the changed now ? --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not read the link? The MOS is clear and that's why I reverted. I'm not here to then explain why it the MOS changed.--UpDown (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very rude: You don't answer my question and destroy my hard work !

So: Please leave me alone and NEVER write anything on my talk page again !

The MOS is clear, but you can't explain it to my why. --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to answer your question, please read the MOS yourself, it clearly says dates should not be linked and if you want to see the discussion that went behind the change read that.--UpDown (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the MOS and ask my question on the talk page there. I hope someboy can help me there.

I wish you a nice day. --AndreaMimi (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Princess Helena of the United Kingdom. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on George V of the United Kingdom. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Andrea, please stop edit-warring over trivialities. DrKay (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope User UpDown ist blocked too. He edited the articles like a war, not myself alone ! He is very rude, because he destroy my hard work ! --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not mind me giving you advice, I'd suggest some patience. Civility is very important and you should try to refrain from personal attacks but rather concentrate on the other editor's arguments. Consider seeking dispute resolution to find a stable ground to work together on making this a better place rather than warring about anything. It just hurts the project and binds resources to sort out that could be used to solve more important problems. You are with this project for 7 months now but you still seem easily excitable. Maybe you should consider adoption by a more experienced user who can help you in such cases, by explaining policies or guidelines to you.

While it's frowned upon, I will comment in German as well (as I gathered that you have difficulties with English):

Beruhige dich bitte. Du bist alt genug, dass dich sowas nicht aufregen sollte. Wenn du nichts dagegen hast, lass mich dir einen Rat geben und die etwas Geduld empfehlen. Es ist sehr wichtig, dass du nicht persönlich wirst und andere Leute angreifst, das schadet dir sonst nur selbst. Versuche lieber dich mit den Argumenten deines Gegenübers außeinanderzusetzen anstatt ihn zu beschimpfen (selbst wenn es nicht so gemeint sein mag). Wir haben für solche Fälle sog. "dispute resolution" um Streitigkeiten zu schlichten und du solltest in einem solchen Fall dich dorthin wenden. Dieses Gekämpfe in Artikeln schadet nur dem Projekt und bindet Resourcen, die sonstwie besser eingesetzt werden könnten. Ich sehe du bist seit Februar bei uns (keine Ahnung, ob du auf der deutschen Wikipedia länger bist), jedoch bist du immernoch leicht erregbar scheinbar. Ich würde dir empfehlen, dir einmal zu überlegen, dich von einem erfahrenen User "adoptieren" zu lassen, der dir bei Fragen zur Seite stehen kann und dir bei Problemen Grundlagen und Regeln der englischen Wikipedia erläutern kann. So Why 13:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy

I see. You are a user, that understand German too. Now I will tell you to explain, what I mean.

I put some informations about the British Royal House in tables. And linked the days, months and years. I saw examples in other "ready" articles.

User UpDown came and destroy this work. He removed the links to the days, months and years. And didn't recognize the hard work with the tables. He don't know, why this is changed now.

I have troubles in the German Wikipedia too. I can't do anything there for example don't write on my talk page there.

It's a good idea to adopte user. You can adopte me ?

Thank you for your help.

Sieh mal an, es gibt ja auch deutschsprachige User/innen hier. Nun denn, ich will versuchen, dir zu erklären, was ich meine. Du kannst es dir dann ins englische übersetzen.

Also: Ich hab' bei einige Articles über die britische Königsfamilie die Daten zu den Kindern in entsprechende, übersichtliche Tabellenformate gebracht und die Tage, Monate und Jahre dementsprechend verlinkt. Als Beispiel für das Verlinken haben mir bereits "fertige" Artikel gedient.

Und nun kommt der User UpDown daher und macht diese Arbeit mit einem Mausklick kaputt. Kein Wort dazu, dass ich die Daten mühsam sortiert habe, stattdessen sieht er nur meine Fehler. Und er weiß nicht mal, warum das mit dem Verlinken der Daten geändert worden ist.

Verstehst du nun, warum ich mich darüber so aufrege, wenn jemand meine Arbeit zerstört.

Das mit dem "adoptieren" ist eine gute Idee. Wusste gar nicht, dass es sowas gibt.

Zur deutschsprachigen Wikipedia äußere ich mich nicht, nur soviel dazu: da gibt es noch mehr negative User, mit denen man nicht mal reden kann. Da ist mir ja UpDown noch lieber, ehrlich.

Danke für deine Unterstützung. --AndreaMimi (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of AndreaMimi's response: She has added the dates about children of the British Royal Family into easy-to-view tables and linked days, months and years accordingly (as other articles have done). UpDown (talk · contribs) reverted those edits because the current MoS discourages linking of dates but has also undone her work with the tables, without explaining why he did that.

There are quite a few Germans and Austrians here, some admins even. Most of them were fed up with the German Wikipedia like you and me.

Well, I understand your anger quite well but my point was not one about the reason for it but how you handled it. If someone undoes your edits, you need to talk to them, figure out why, explain it to them. If you become uncivil, they will respond the same way and we have reports to WP:ANI which have no real basis. As for adoption, you should really consider it. I would offer my services if you wish, although my adoption style is more mentorship than schooling like other's do it. You need to know what you need. As for the German Wikipedia, I understand your feelings about it. That's the reason I work here ;-) So Why 13:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Es gibt hier einige Deutsche und Österreicher (ich bin beides^^), sogar einige der Admins sind deutschsprachig. Ich denke die meisten waren wie du und ich mit der deutschen Wikipedia nicht zufrieden.

Ich verstehe auch deinen Ärger über die Aktionen des Users, aber meine "Rüge" bezog sich auf deine Reaktion, nicht deine Gefühle. Wenn jemand deine Änderungen rückgängig macht, musst du es mit ihnen bereden, herausfinden wieso und erklären, wieso du meinst, wieso sie falsch liegen. Wenn du unhöflich wirst, werden sie es auch nur und dann haben wir Meldungen auf dem Admin Notizbrett die keine Grundlage haben. Wegen Adoption, ich würde es wirklich empfehlen. Ich würde meine Dienste anbieten, aber ich sage gleich dazu, dass ich einen bestimmten Stil dabei pflege: Ich bin Mentor und helfe bei Fragen, aber ich gebe keine Kurse wie andere Adopter. Du musst wissen, was du brauchst. Und wegen der deutshcen Wikipedia, wie gesagt, ich versteh dich. Deshalb arbeit ich ja hier ;-) So Why 13:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy

Thank you for your answer. Now I understand what you mean. I try to give my best with the articles and tables - it's a very hard work - and than come somebody and remove the links. I can cry about the destroying.

Now, you adopte me. I listen to you and do anything what you say äh write. I think I need professional help, like you.

And wish you an nice day. I'll come back later, I have other things to do. Sorry.

Danke für deine Antwort. Nun verstehe ich, was du meinst. Ich gebe mein bestes mit den Artikeln und den Tabellen, es ist eine schwere Arbeit und dann kommt jemand und entfernt die mühsam erstellten Link. Ich könnte heulen über die "Zerstörung".

Nun adoptierst du mich. Ich höre dir zu und tue alles, was du sagst äh schreibst. Ich glaube, ich bin jetzt soweit, dass ich professionelle Hilfe wie dich brauche.

Und wünsche dir einen schönen Tag.

P.S. Ich komm' später im Laufe des Abends mal wieder hier vorbei. Ich muss auch was anderes tun. Leider. --AndreaMimi (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can talk in English for now, I will switch to German if you do request it because you do not understand my English explanation etc. I'm glad you understood what I meant, be careful in the future because there is a three-revert-rule which will get you blocked in most cases if you act in that manner again. As for adoption, I am happy to help you. You should add {{adoptee|SoWhy}} to your user page to advertise this new status.

Two small notes, you should regard as your first advice in this new mentorship: Use the "Show Preview" button always, no matter how trivial the comment you are making, it will save you from making corrections in 9 out of 10 times. Also, as of now, start using edit summaries. You can select "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in your preferences => editing to help you not to forget it. Looking forward to your reply. Regards So Why 14:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy

Well, well. I see. I understand your notes and give my best to avoid mistakes here. Many, many thanks you for help. --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dates

I saw your query at the autoformatting page. There have been long debates at MOSNUM and elsewhere about whether date fragments (such as 1980) should be linked, an separately whether dates should be autoformatted (which regrettably piggybacks on WikiMedia's linking system, so looks the same). Both debates have been resolved in the negative. On the second issue, I've pasted in a capped list of the disadvantages.

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

(1) In-house only

(a) It works only for registered (Wikipedian) users who have set their date preferences and are logged in.
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.

(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

(4) Typos and misunderstood coding

(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how it differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

(5) Edit-mode clutter

(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

(6) Limited application

(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Further information is here, and in the archives of MOSNUM talk (clearly marked as such). You're welcome to ask further questions. Tony (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony

Many thanks for your answer and your help. Now I understand the reason for the changed links. You are very helpfull.

I wish you a nice day. --AndreaMimi (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to you too! I notice above that there's been a contretemps about this between you and another editor. Those who are putting into effect the new practice are clearly warned not to edit war (I'll post a note with that editor now). Tony (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:AndreaMimi in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayalld

I understand, I should translate my comments in english. Well, I try to give my best. English is not my mothers tounge, but my second language. I also speak: Spanish and Latin, but not as fluent as English.

Thank you for your help. I wish you a nice day. --AndreaMimi (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guten Tag

I am also adopted by SoWhy and i wanted to say helloNo Hollaback Girl (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@No Hollaback Girl

I send you the best wishes and greetings. And wish you a nice evening.

Sorry for my late answer. --AndreaMimi (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Martha Louise

You're welcome! It was nothing, really ;) Surtsicna (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Hi. I noticed you added flag icons to several infoboxes. This practice is unnecessary and deprecated; WP:MOSFLAG explains in detail why. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags are very important ! Never remove them again !

It's for people, they don't know anything about the Trapp Family and can find the right flags for Austria and Vermont. --AndreaMimi (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John pointed you to a style guideline that explains that we don't use flag icons to decorate articles.

Style guidelines are there to be followed, not for you to decide that you know better and can dismiss them!

Please do not;

Add flags in defiance of WP:MOSFLAG again
Reproach other editors who have corrected your failure to comply with the guideline.

Mayalld (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags are very important, you are right. That is why we have developed style guidelines to prevent flags from being misused on this project. As this is a project-wide consensus, it is not for me or you to challenge. If you did want to challenge it, you would be best to do so at the talk page of the relevant guideline. Tell me, what is the advantage, as you see it, of using

Austria over Austria to denote a place of birth, in an article in an encyclopedia for adults? Take your time and write as much as you like. Looking forward to your response, --John (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my english is not as well as yours - both - I try to understand you informations.

Why do you use flag icons than ? It's very easy to find a land with the flags, isn't it ?

My opinion is: An article look better with flag icons. It's a little opinion. ;)

I wish you - both - a nice evening. See you. --AndreaMimi (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to hold that opinion. You are not free to decide that your opinion outranks Wikipedia policy. Where Wikipedia policy doesn't agree with your opinion, you must abide by policy.

Shouting at people never to remove flags again when the removal was in line with policy is a really silly thing to do. Mayalld (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never shout at people, I only say ähm write my opinion. Nobody had removed the flag icons in other articles before. I come and put them there. And somebody only want to remove the flag icons, that I put.

But, that's not my problem.

Who has destroyed the article about Maria Augusta von Trapp ? I need a lot of time, to put the informations about her three children in the right form. --AndreaMimi (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that an IP editor vandalised the article, but that it wasn't spotted.

However, you really must NOT use edit summaries instructing other editors to leave the article alone. WP:OWN says that you don't own an article, no matter how much work you put into it, and warning off other editors is not allowed. Mayalld (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayalld is right, you shouldn't add flags to articles again. This has been discussed at length on the discussion page of WP:MOSFLAG and no-one has ever come up with a convincing argument for using flags like this. As it is just as easy to understand Austria, or to click the link if one desires to find out more, as it is to understand

Austria, and as we tend to avoid decorative stuff and only use images which add understanding, we have agreed as a project not to do this. Furthermore, this is a collaborative project and it is vital to work productively with others. It feels weird when you have put a lot of work into something and then someone else comes along and changes it, but that is what you sign up for every time you make an edit. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." WP:OWN gives more information about this. --John (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Und auch, natürlich kannst Du deutsch mit mir reden, wenn es einfacher ist. --John (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zerstöre nie wieder meine harte Arbeit, die ich in diese Artikel gesteckt habe, in dem du die Flaggen entfernst ! Ist das klar ! Mehr habe ich dazu nicht zu sagen ! Bzw. schon auf englisch gesagt.

Artikel über Rosemarie, Eleonore und Johannes folgen in Kürze - mit Flaggen ! - wenn ich genug Quellen habe.

So einfach ist das Artikel erstellen nämlich nicht, wie es aussieht. Leider hast du mit deinem Dazwischenreden hier verhindert, dass ich einen langen Text hier schreiben hätte können. Dieser ist dummerweise gelöscht worden.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für Ihre Antwort. Sie müssen erfahren, dass dieses ein kooperatives Projekt ist. Wenn viele Leute mit Ihnen anderer Meinung sind, müssen Sie feststellen, dass Sie verwechselt werden. Wenn Sie nicht imstande sind, dies zu tun ich, schlagen Sie vor, dass Sie eine andere Liebhaberei finden. Beste Wünsche, --John (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in German and English now and longer to explain, what I mean. It's very hard to built articles. I think you know, what I mean. What will you do, if I come and change something - important or not - on your article ? I think, that's not right for you.

Why do you always destroy my hard work ?

Articles about Rosemarie, Eleonore and Johannes von Trapp will follow as soon as possible, when I have enough ressources about them. The Website from the National Archiv in Boston can't help me in this cases.

I wish you a nice weekend.

Ok, nun will ich es auf Deutsch und auf Englisch noch einmal in Ruhe erklären, was ich meine. Es ist schwer Artikel zu erstellen. Ich denke, Sie wissen, wovon ich schreibe. Was würden Sie tun, wenn ich kommen und etwas - Wichtiges oder nicht - an Ihren Artikeln verändern würde ? Ich denke, das wäre Ihnen sicher nicht recht.

Warum zerstören Sie immer wieder meine harte Arbeit ?

Artikel über Rosemarie, Eleonore und Johannes von Trapp folgen in Kürze, wenn ich genügend Quellen beisammen habe. Die Homepage vom National Archiv in Boston kann mir in diesem Fall leider nicht weiterhelfen.

Ich wünsche Ihnen ein schönes Wochenende. --AndreaMimi (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sie schreiben so schön! Als wir schon freuer gesagt haben, WP:OWN wird alles erklären. Es gibt hier kein "mein Artikel" oder "Ihr Artikel". Vielleicht kann ich Ihnen helfen statt kämpfen über diesen kleinen und unbedeutenden Sachen. Danke sehr. --John (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@John

Well, I'll do my very best to control my temper. You are right.

I wish you a nice sunday. With the best wishes. --AndreaMimi (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:AndreaMimi in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayalld

I posted a comment in German and English. But it was deleted from the system. I sent the comment and at this time my talk page was changed from another user. So my comment was not here.

Stop to "spam" at my talk page. I delete your comments.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not spamming your talk page. I am warning you for your repeated breaches of policy. Feel free to delete my messages, but if you breach policy, I am entitled to warn you. Mayalld (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete your messenges again. I have no fear from you.

Now I have changend some informations of other articles/talk pages here. For example about Franz Joseph I. (1830-1916).

I wish you a nice weekend. --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive or hard to read formatting, as you did in Martina von Trapp, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. As previously advised, subsequent references use the surname ONLY. Mayalld (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I stop, writing the truth ? You are not an admin, so that's not your problem.

Mr. ?? . Sorry, I don't know your surname ;). --AndreaMimi (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Mayall is my surname. You clearly don't understand how Wikipedia works. Reverting edits that run counter to the Manual of Style is not an admin "job". It is something that any editor can do. Neither is it an admin job to warn other users that their actions are disruptive and counter to policy. You have been advised that the Manual of Style says the subsequent references to a person should use only the surname. Despite this, you persist in reverting it to your preferred form (contrary to MOS), just as you did with the flag icons. That is disruptive editing, and if it persists you will be blocked from editing. Mayalld (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Martina von Trapp. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Your repeated refusal to abide by the manual of style on flags and naming conventions constitutes vandalism. Mayalld (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an admin ! You can't forbidd me anything ! Write the next articles yourself, I'm not you servant !

It's a very hard job to make articles and you never destroy my work again ! I'm not a vandal !

Look at the articles about Martinas silblings. There are the correct forms of the names !

You can change it, if you want. It looks "crazy", if one article about the Trapp Family was "right" or "wrong". I know, what you mean.

Change "your" form in alle articles, without any exeption. That's ok.

Let's try to give you a example:

"Martina von Trapp ...." , "Hedwig von Trapp ...." - "your form": "von trapp ...." (in all articles, not only Martinas ).

Noboby knows, who is mentioned. With my form you can see, who ist mentioned in the articles.

You use the first names, when you talk with somebody, don't you for example: Angus . Or you use the surnames, when you don't know the firsts names like: Mr. Hudson.

You also use my first name here, and not my surname. Do you now know, what I means ?

--AndreaMimi (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. You do not own the articles on the Von Trapp family, and any editor is permitted to remove breaches of the Manual of Style.

Likewise, any editor can warn you if you disruptively persist in violating the manual of style Mayalld (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand, what I say to you. That's not an edit-war, it's my right opinion. Why don't you answered my questions about the articles about the Trapp Family ?

I also use the firstnames when I talk with people, not there surnames. That sounds "crazy".

--AndreaMimi (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea, thanks for your message. I am an admin and I would not dream of blocking you as I have been in dispute with you in the past. Basically though, as with the flag issue we previously discussed, Mayalld is right, as far as I know we use surnames. Blocking would however only become an issue if you broke WP:3RR, or your edits became really disruptive. Please, both of you, try to communicate more collegially. I know you are both intelligent people with good intentions. Andrea, accept that others may edit your work and may know more about our conventions than you do. Mayalld, cool it, and be patient while Andrea adapts to our norms, please. --John (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@John

Ok, you are right. I'll give my very best to avoid any mistakes like using the false forms of the names or anything else.

If I do it again, I'll be blocked. I have no problem beeing blocked, that's ok.

I have a question to you. How can I mark the birthyear from Rosemarie von Trapp ? Some sourches say, that she was born 1929, but the national archive in boston for the us citizen says 1928.

My next step is: Built articles about Rosemarie von Trapp, Eleonore von Trapp Campbell and Johannes von Trapp. But I need Rosemaries birthyear. And another sourches too. It's very hard to find something about them.

I wish you a nice sunday. --AndreaMimi (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive or hard to read formatting, as you did in Werner von Trapp, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Despite having had the relevant bit of the MOS pointed out to you several times, you persist in deliberately going against it. This must stop! Two days ago, you said that you would do your very best to avoid making this mistake again, but today you edited 4 articles with the sole purpose of going back to the version that contravenes the Manual of Style Mayalld (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said: "That's not your problem, Mayalld." Let me do my work here like I let you your work here too.

What's your problem ?

You can't block me. ;) And I can't block you, if I want to do that.

Leave me alone and look at your work.

See you. --AndreaMimi (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that you are repeatedly editing articles contrary to the manual of style, despite being informed of what the manual of style tells you. You have been told several times to read WP:OWN You do not own these articles, and have no right to tell other editors to do "their" work instead of interfering with yours. If you are truly unable to grasp that, Wikipedia is not the place for you.

My work, for the present, includes ensuring that these articles remain MOS compliant. I AM looking at my work.

As to blocking, you are correct that I can't block you (and even if I could, I wouldn't, because I am too involved). I can however warn you when you edit disruptively (for example, by contravening the MOS despite having been repeatedly told about the MOS). Rest assured that if you continue to flout the MOS having been adequately warned that you must not do so, an uninvolved admin WILL block you. Mayalld (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to notify that AndreaMimi (Andrea1984 in German Wikipedia)has also been blocked on the German Wikipedia for her obstinacy and complete intrancigence. Judith M-S (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Over the past couple of days, the von Trapp articles have been edited several times by IP editors. On each occasion, the purpose of the edit has been to re-introduce the version that doesn't comply with the Manual of Style.

Each of these IP addresses can be geolocated back to Salzburg.

It is (per WP:DUCK) clear that you are repeatedly editing these articles from various IP addresses to try and get your preferred version in, regardless of what the manual of style says.

You have been given ample warnings, and the situation has been explained to you repeatedly. Do you imagine that this will continue indefinitely, and that if you keep trying new tricks, you will eventually get your own way? That isn't how Wikipedia works.

Please regard this as the last warning that you will get from me. If you continue to edit tenditiously (whether logged in or as an IP), I will raise this at WP:SSP and WP:RCU, to establish beyond doubt that you are playing silly games.

Please, be in no doubt that tenditious editing in an attempt to get a non-MOS version of an article to remain, and doing so whilst logged out to make it appear that more than one person is editing, WILL result in a block Mayalld (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayalld

It's the last warning from me too: You are not allowed to block me ! Is that clear ! That's not your thing to do.

You can change whatever you want, but if you do that do it in all articles about the Trapp Family not only in the articles about your "favorites": Rupert, Werner and Martina.

Do you know, what I mean ?

--AndreaMimi (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 15:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Thanthalas39

I think, that's not you problem. Are your an admin or not ?

@Mayalld

Why don't you answer my questions ? The are not funny, as you think.

Look here: You can change whatever you want, but if you do that do it in all articles about the Trapp Family not only in the articles about your "favorites": Rupert, Werner and Martina.

Do you know, what I mean ?

--AndreaMimi (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have done your best, Mayalld.

Do you change the informations in the article about Miep Gies (99 - still alive !) too ? I havn't built the article, about her. That's not my work.

Please answer this question here. --AndreaMimi (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your questions, yes Thanthalas39 is an administrator (the fact that you are now blocked, and can edit no page except this one is evidence enough of that).

I'm afraid that I really cannot understand the attitude that you take. I have repeatedly warned you that your antics in tenditiously editing articles to your preferred style, contrary to the manual of style was becoming disruptive, and that you would end up blocked.

Your reaction has been to rudely tell me that I'm not an admin, and that it isn't my business.

Now an admin has come along, and noted your long term pattern of disruptive editing, which has continued despite repeated warnings, and block you for a week. What is your reaction? You tell him that it isn't his business. Please, get the message. Any editor can correct your editing, and can warn you for MOS breaches, and any admin can block you for disruptively trying to force your version thorugh.

Please, once and for all understand that "that's not your problem" is not an acceptable attitude on Wikipedia.

I have done some work to correct the incorect style in a number of articles. It took longer than necessary, because you were busy editing them back again (which is why you have now been blocked). There are doubtless other articles that I haven't fixed, but what of it? There isn't a rule that says I must fix all the other articles if I wish to fix one.

Finally, allow me to offer you some advice. You have been blocked for a week for disruptive editing. You need to take on board the fact that your behaviour has been unacceptable, and clearly understand that should you go back to your old habits when your block ends, you will be re-blocked, and for a longer time. Mayalld (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AndreaMimi for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Mayalld (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for block evasion. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 16:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mistake - I was never a sockpuppetry

What's your problem ? I have done nothing. I was blocked 24 hours (or 1 week ?) in November, that's ok.

Now I'm back to write articles about Rosemarie, Eleonore and Johannes von Trapp. I have enough sources about them. --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, you are not back to do anything, because you are blocked.

You were blocked for a week back in November, at which point you logged out and continued to edit without logging in. As a result, and taking into account the fact that you have already been blocked from de wikipedia, you have been indefinitely blocked for block evasion.

Unless and until you can convince an admin that you have reformed, and will respect Wikipedia policies in future, you can't edit anything (and you should be in no doubt that evading blocks would not assist in convincing anybody) Mayalld (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Havn't you seen the hard work, that I had with the articles ? You are so bad ! I hate you !

How long I'm blocked at this time ? It's a very important question.

I do my own things in the Salzburg Wikipedia, like this article: [13] ort the articles about the Trapp Family.

There I can do, whatever I want. The people there like me and my hard work with the articles there.

They are not as bad as you.

I wanted to work hard here, but you destroy my work every time. Why do you do that ?

I hate you so much, that I never hate somebody before.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One shouldn't believe that you are in your mid-twenties - as childish as your behaviour is! By the way: You wrote: "There I can do, whatever I want." - don't deceive yourself! Judith M-S (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Judith M-S

Leave me alone. Look at your articles, not at mine.

And stop to say, what I can do and what not. You are not an admin here. --AndreaMimi (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AndreaMimi (2nd nomination) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Mayalld (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are so bad ! I hate you !

I make articles as well as possible and you come and destroy my hard work !

--AndreaMimi (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemarie von Trapp

http://www.salzburg.com/wiki/index.php/Rosemarie_von_Trapp - look here, about her.

The Trivia is a very important point.

"Rosemaries zweiter Vorname ist Erentrudis. Er kommt von der Begründerin des Stifts Nonnberg, in welchem Maria Augusta von Trapp einige Jahre ihres Lebens verbracht hat und Rosemarie die ersten Jahre zur Schule gegangen ist."

I hope, you find somebody, that translated you this text in English. My english is not as well as yours.

You are as bad as a devil. Destroy hard work, that's all, what you can.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You were blocked because you refuse to abide by policy. You now attempt to evade the blocks.

Please understand that no matter how much you throw tantrums, Wikipedia has rules, and you either play by the rules or you don't play.

It is great when somebody adds relevant content, but not at the price of allowing you to continue to defy policy, and not when the content that has been added is translated so poorly as to be unintelligible.

The more you shout about hating me, the less chance there is of you ever being allowed to edit again. Mayalld (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comeback

I try to do a comeback. And give my best to avoid any mistakes, that I made in past.

I hope, that's ok.

I have not as much time for this Wikipedia at the moment. --AndreaMimi (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct form ?

In the article about Queen Victoria (1819-1901) there are to forms of dates. " Issue Name Birth Death Notes The Princess Victoria, Princess Royal 21 November 1840 1901, 5 August Married 1858, Friedrich III, German Emperor and King of Prussia; had issue. King Edward VII 9 November 1841 1910, 6 May Married 1863, Princess Alexandra of Denmark; had issue. The Princess Alice 25 April 1843 1878, 14 December Married 1862, Louis IV, Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine; had issue. The Prince Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Duke of Edinburgh 6 August 1844 1900, 31 July Married 1874, Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrovna of Russia; had issue. The Princess Helena 25 May 1846 1923, 9 June Married 1866, Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg; had issue. The Princess Louise 18 March 1848 1939, 3 December Married 1871, John Douglas Sutherland Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll; no issue. The Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn 1 May 1850 1942, 16 January Married 1879, Princess Louise Margaret of Prussia; had issue. The Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany 7 April 1853 1884, 28 March Married 1882, Princess Helena of Waldeck and Pyrmont; had issue. The Princess Beatrice 14 April 1857 1944, 26 October Married 1885, Prince Henry of Battenberg; had issue. "

Which are correct ? 21 November 1840 or - this form - 1940 21 November ?

And who had changed them in this forms ? --AndreaMimi (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not an administrator, so this is just information from another ordinary editor.) There's been much recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) about the format of dates, and "1940 3 September" (YYYY-D-MMMM) is just one form that's never yet come into anyone's mind. It's completely unfamiliar to British or North American readers, it's not a logical progression either upwards or downwards in time, and it has the disadvantage of putting two numbers together in a way that's hard to separate visually without a comma, colon or other punctuation. The formats that have been discussed for many months (even years) are "3 September 1940" (European style), "September 3, 1940" (U.S. style), "1940-09-03" (International Standards Organisation format, disfavoured in text and hotly-debated for footnote citations) and "1940 September 3" (not a common form, but used in some chronologies). See, for example, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates.

¶ Now that I see the Queen Victoria#Issue text you copied more closely, I can see what someone was trying to do, show the years together, as in 1837-1901, while leaving the months and days separated on the outside. (The editor might also have been trying to make the death dates "sortable", that is allow them to be arranged in chronological order by clicking the little arrows next to "Death" at the top.) But to create this kind of format successfully, you should put the day on the very outside and the month in between the year and the day, so you'd have "The Princess Alice 25 April 1843–1878 December 14". I think for this format to work, the table would also need to right-align the dates in the first column. The other problem with this approach is that you can't sort the birth column properly (1857 would then come between 1850 and 1848). My personal feeling (not instruction) would be that it seems simplest to have the dates in both columns in the form "25 April 1843"|"14 December 1878". There are other ways of making the dates sortable. Best wishes, —— Shakescene (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've completely reworked the dates at Victoria of the United Kingdom#Issue so they look more normal and can be sorted by both birth and death. I also added the spouses' dates and the number of children. But I may well have made some mistakes, so please go ahead, check my work and make any necessary corrections. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Shakescene

Many thanks, that you correct the dates in a good form. Now I can read the article about Queen Victoria and her issue better.

It's very good, that you added the number of the grandchildren.

I wish you a nice day. --AndreaMimi (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trapp Family question at the Reference Desk

Hello, you might be interested in reading (and perhaps responding to) this recent question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, since it involves both genealogy and the Trapp family: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Six degrees of separation. Best wishes. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were you requesting an unblock?

It looks like you were appealing for information on how to get unblocked in the section above titled Comeback.

See Wikipedia:APPEAL#Routes_to_unblock for information on how to request an unblock. Essentially you need to acknowledge that the conduct that led to your block was incorrect conduct on your part and then request a second chance.

For what it's worth I think that overall your actual content contributions (as opposed to the disagreements about names and commas and such) were useful. Also, some of the conflicts listed above are caused by misunderstanding rather than ill intent on your part. If you want some tips on how to avoid conflict on Wikipedia ask and I'll see if I can help (if I remember to check your page) Year Zero is a concept (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Johannavontrapp.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Johannavontrapp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Agathevontrapp.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Agathevontrapp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ Lees-Milne, p.231

[1] Lees-Milne, p.231

[1]