User talk:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel

Welcome...

Hello, Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, 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:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this 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! Xiner (talk, email) 18:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Franz Liszt's article

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

British/Irish Hugenot category

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

Samuel Beckett

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

Category:People who have renounced Judaism

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

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

Solomon Hirschell

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

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

Music publishing

I have made a start by renaming the article 'Music publisher' as Music publisher (popular music)' and creating a dismabig in Music publisher. there really needs to be a 'Music publisher (sheet music)' article and I will create this as a stub. Once tge articles are set up we can start work on the categories. Best regards --Smerus 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Category:Jewish_mathematicians deletion review

I have changed my stance to Weak Undelete, but I do not feel it is entirely substantiated. The arguments presented are well founded. At least, I feel that the discussion possibly does not belong here, but rather possibly in WP:RFC for further debate, and ideas. I must agree the Jewish people are in a rather interesting position. Just my thoughts. --Martian.knight 00:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marylebone

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

Pinto

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

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

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

Edits

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

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

Opera houses in Poland

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

Comas

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

List of opera houses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Striking out old votes

I struck out your old vote for you as is generally theway this is done on Wikipedia to show a changed vote. However, someone appears not to like me doing so [2], you may wish to revert them. Giano 17:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with Palme?

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

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

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

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

Hi

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

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

New category

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

I wouldn't bother. As User:Wassermann well knows, it is a recreation of a deleted category: see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_19#Category:People_who_have_renounced_Judaism. It has been speedy deleted, per WP:CSD G4. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:9th duke of marlborough.JPG

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

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

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

William Arbuthnot

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

Bassano

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

Charles Ramsay Arbuthnot

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

I've replied here rather than on the AfD itself, as I don't think it really adds to the discussion and I don't want to fan flames. Kittybrewster is certainly right about one thing; these AfDs are becoming unpleasant, and have a tendency to degenerate into slanging matches between the {{irc}} and the Kittens, which get closed on the basis of which faction has annoyed the closing admin the least. I'm also uncomfortable with these articles being nominated when KB isn't around to defend them - while I don't think most of them are defensible, I do think he deserves a chance to expand them while they're under discussion — iridescenti (talk to me!) 01:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Ramsay Arbuthnot

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

Sims Reeves

Dear G von H, I note your edits to John Sims Reeves. Only one query, why insist upon the information given by any Dictionary when the person states the date of his own birth? Surely he must be the first authority? As to order of listing, I have always listed my sources alphabetically - is this against WP policy? I didn't know the 1924 source and am v interested to see it! Cheers, Dr Steven Plunkett 18:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams external links

Hi, I removed the links because they fall under category 1 of WP:EL (external links guideline) under "Links normally to be avoided": Links that provide information which we would try to include if this article were to be a featured article. That is to say, the article should be improved by incorporating the information in these pages rather than linking to them. Since the links go to pages which are designed to promote Adams they are especially on shaky ground. The link to the Arts Medal for instance can be replaced by a line in the article and a link to an independent source such as [3] which fits with the WP policy to let independent sources decide what is important. Best -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of England

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

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

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

Music of the UK

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

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

Mandrake of Oxford

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

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

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

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

Arbuthnots

Isn't this amazing the family themselves [4] have only recognized thirteen member as being "famous" [5] yet we have to have here some 60 odd; I am tempted to email "The Hon Historian, of the Arbuthnott Family Association - "who will welcome corrections, additions and constructive suggestions" and see if s/he has a clue what is going on here. I also note the Arbuthnott site clearly states [6] that "The site (Kittybrewster's) is not subject to the control of the Association and the Association specifically disassociates itself from the site". Giano 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nicolas Sarkozy's photo

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

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

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

Hope Baronets

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

A.A.

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

Keith Marischal

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

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

Apologia

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

Bassano/Laniers and Jewish Origins

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

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

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

Broadwater Farm

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

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

Peerage

To be clear, I'm not accusing *you* of having some sort of ideological vendetta against the peerage; your contributions speak pretty clearly otherwise. But I think you're being a bit naive about 1) the success of summary style and 2) the value of challenges to notability. I thought the summary style was a good solution for baronets because most of them are individually non-notable, and it seemed like a good compromise between the "keep" and "delete them all" factions. That said, when even as dilligent a contributor as Giano can't be bothered to summarize individual articles before redirecting them ([7] [8] [9]), it doesn't look like much of a compromise from the "keep" side, does it? I don't see any reason why this would be different for barons, viscounts, etc. if your test case is successful. Moving on to notability, in an ideal world, yes, it would be best if all questionable articles were politely queried for notability, their authors brought forth evidence and sources and improved the article, and so on. In practice, there are certainly people out there who view challenges based on WP:N as an opportunity to delete as many articles on peers as they can — you shouldn't have to look very hard in the current AfD to find some of them. And given a little wikilawyering over the definition of "reliable source", there are a lot of potentially challengeable articles. Having a blanket rule to protect peers, MPs, etc. may protect non-notable individuals, but it also prevents people from using this strategy to remove articles because the author was swamped while responding to twenty AfDs at once. Strictly as a matter of opinion, I feel that the proportion of notable individuals among the peerage is high enough to make it worth protecting with such a rule, as opposed to the baronetage, where it is much lower. Choess 14:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

More Kitty Kanvassing!

This messege here is canvassing per WP:CANVAS because the messege is notneutral since he shows his view that "it is notable". Now this guy has had many warnings for canvassing but now that be blanks his page no admin can see the previous warnings. Now I for one think that if an editor chooses to blank/hide his history then they should already be treated with suspicion and especially if they have already recieved warnings. What course of action should/can be taken!?--Vintagekits 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sir William Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet

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

North American Opera Co. List

I thought it might be nice to sepperate by country since my master plan is to have a global list seperated by continent and then country eventually. But we don't have to and I may be a little too ambitous. lolNrswanson 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that. I would be more likely to do divisional sub categories in those cases. Like Eastern European and Western European. I lumped all of Central America and the Caribean together for North American Companies. Also, what criteria are we using for the companies? I thought the original intent of this list was to be more inclusive of good proffessional regional companies that produced a smaller amount of operas (say at least 3) per year. Otherwise the list is simply like the other one. I'm not sure "full-time" is a good word.

Well i think professional is the key word. As in the performers are PAID working professionals in the field and people pay for tickets. I wasn't thinking of including amateur community groups and things like that. I was hoping to include companies like Tulsa Opera and Philadelphia Opera that have smaller seasons but still put on high calliber productions that are often just as good as those produced in New York, Chicago, Houston, etc.Nrswanson 16:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image size in articles

Hi Gustav - WP:IUP is a policy with the suggestion that images are to be thumbnailed. This actually provides each editor (and logged in reader) to set their own preference as to the displayed image size, which, by default, is 180px. Obviously, there are exceptions, such as when an image needs to be a certain size to illustrate a claim in the main article space - I do not, however, see this to be an issue in the London Bridge article - Tiswas^(t) 12:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Without wishing to exploit my innate talent for pedantry, WP:IUP is {{policy}}. Just because it is ignored or applied differently elsewhere, does not subtract (nor add) from its domain in the London Bridge article. There is, as you mention, an element of discretion available to editors, and is detailed in the manual of style - specifically:

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

When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts

When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region

On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.

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

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

Yes - the quote is from a discretionary guideline derived from policy. Thatr doesn't mean that we simply ignore it. The lead image should most probably be set at a larger than default width, as per established guidelines (notwithstanding the fact that thumbnails become messed up within infoboxes) - The other images should be thumbed, in accordance with these guidelines. - Tiswas^(t) 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

AfD decisions

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

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

Streets & squares in Westminster

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

List of notable converts to Christianity

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

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

ArbCom

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

Username

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

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

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

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service,

Hi Gustav,

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

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

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

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

Seacliff Lunatic Aslyum

Please do not force image size - WP:MOS recommends that images not be forced, so users can use their own Wikipedia preferences ("my preferences" link top right). Cheers MadMaxDog 23:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Brown

Hi Gustav,

This article opens with:

James Gordon Brown (born 20 February 1951) is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Member of Parliament for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Leader of the Labour Party.

Do you not feel that this is a bit ponderous, especially with the second of the United Kingdom. If that is valid, then should it not also say Labour Party of the United Kingdom?

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

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

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

glass eye

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

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

Image:Replace this image female.svg

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

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

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

Approximate birth years

Hi Gustav.

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

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

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

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

Undesired edits to your page

Chill, Gustav, I've warned 65.54.154.152. One more and he's out. If you get similar from other IPs and would like your pages semiprotected, please let me know. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

Semiprotected

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

Image:Blair school.JPG

Hi, about this image. It was listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. I always try to assume good faith but from looking at the uploader's talk page I wasn't convinced he was the copyright holder of the image in question. Garion96 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaro family is still in existence

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

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

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

Trouble about!

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

Giano 15:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proto-Protestant

I am trying to salvage Proto-Protestant I just did a blank page rewrite andI am still unhappy with it. Prior to my rewrite it was nothing more than fantasy and speculation. I see you follow the Waldensian article and I thought you may be able to help at Proto-Protestant. -- SECisek 23:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Flute

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

Walking the plank

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

Direktor and his many forums

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

Bertrand Dawson, 1st Viscount Dawson of Penn

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

Walking the plank

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

He is fully referenced as such from a creditable legal court documentation when he became the acting head of his line. I will not disclose that source because it has too much private information about him which has no place in a public Wikipedia article. The man's privacy should be maintained. His father is Sebastianus, not Vitus, Sebastianus also goes by Robert and Bobby too. Vitus also goes by Vito as well. His mother is a Baroness by the name of Grace, and the current family is involved in the arts, and if I am correct, Monet's Plazzo Dario was donated by them to the Art Institute of Chicago. I have also been told that not much has surfaced about Vitus yet at this current time because he is still completing his medical degree in Veternary medicine- like the St. Georges, he is involved with horse racing. Vitus is still young, and I am sure once he is done with school you will be hearing alot more about him. I can confirm that he became the acting head on October 5, 2004. This is when he became the leagl holder of his branch's titles. This is all that I know about him.Save venice 15:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the branch is listed in Spretti beginning with Giovanni Battista. He is the first through "Sottodescritto" (princely underwritting- it's legal mumbo jumbo of the time) to have become a Conte Mashera (abreviated as Conte Masch.) which is Italian for Gefursteter Graf which is a Princely Count. Princely Counts write their princely tile as "Count" but just place H.Ill.H. in front of it (His Illustrious Highness). If you are not up and up on these things- it is very easy to mistake the line as just Counts- they are infact Conte Maschera and documented as such through Sottcdescetto in Spretti's own words.Save venice 16:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is all very complex when dealing with Venetian families and branches, and I would have to go back and really study everything in Spretti. Spretti is no book, it is a multi-volumned encyclopaedia that is bigger than encylopaedia Brittanica!!! The Barbaro family section is massive and broken up into two sections. The conte maschera line is in on p.502 and it also shows their arms which is a red ring on a silver background over Austria's imperial eagle. If you wanted to include the two current heads on the Barbaro page, place them on the bottom as red links in a new section titled "Current Branch Heads"- this way too, Vitus and Antonio can be developed into blue links as more info surfaces.Save venice 16:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Gustav, This is coming from Spretti on that line, p. 502. The title of Conte Maschera (abbreviated as Conte Masch.) first was given to Giovanni Battista of Augustus(father) whose line passed nobility inspection (noble familes had to confirm their legitimacy every so often with the government to keep their titles) on October 8, 1818 with Conte Maschera awarded on battle date. This branch (Albergo branch) has maintained nobility/royalty legitimacy up to when the last review was made in the 20th century in 1911 officiating that the line through "sottodescritto" had been fully eleveted to highness as Conte Masch. (in Spretti's own writing). Giovanni is P.C #1.

P.C #2 is his son Valeriano (Vitus's greatgrandfather) who in honor of his father starts the tradition of using the name of the P.C. before him with the Roman derivitave of his own name. As P.C. he is known as Giambattista Valerianus. He also has to marry a princess like his father. His father married a mediatized princess of the Campolongo named Angela and Valeriano married a Palatine Countess (also a type of princess) on September 29, 1888. Her name is Giovannina and she is of the Binni family related to a current Count Antonio Bini who is the Vatican Secretary of State. Valaerianus is follows by P.C. #3 a Vius born in 1907 who is followed by P.C. #4 a Sebastianus born in 1935. This would be Vitus's father who is listed as an art dealer married to a Calabrian/Roman Baronessa Grazia Talarico di Capace who was born in 1946, and finally Vitus (Vito) P.C. #5 was born in 1973 who is listed as an engineer and art historian and became the current head on October 5, 2004 (when he became titled officially in accordance with it being his legal name). That's the break down. You, can add Vitus as a red link on the bottom and site it with Spretti and you can add Antonio and site it with the Giles source. But don't place them in notable members section until we know more about their biographies. Place them in a section titled "The Current Acting Heads of the Barbaro Family".Save venice 17:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested including both heads to the page, Also include their position as 5th and 9th respectivelySave venice 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Gustav, checked source, Giovanni Battista Barbaro in that book you are talking about is connected to Francesco ambasador to the Court of Savoia, (This line will eventually die out with out males to continue (Vidal line), and now here is where we have some division. One brother Sante becomes a Knight of Malta and which is further followed by Simone who goes to Malta to fight aginst slavery, this forms a Maltese branch by talking the title Marchese San Giorgio while a relative of this San Giorgio branch (now you see why we need these nicknames) also goes to Napoli to fight there. Simone is connected to Alessandro (Council of Ten). Alessandro stays in Venice to oversee the family's buisness interests with their Albergo (Albergo line). Vidal dies out, others are now Maltese, and Alessandro pushes the Albergo line forward. Then we have a move over to Catanzaro and Spretti also note's that one of the Albergos was an aviation pioneer. He is the first to fly to the top of Lake Titcaca in Peru (so there is some interest in this line being aeronautical engineers), and today the street "Via Barbaro" in Catanzaro was later named "Via Aldo Barbaro" in honor of his aviation achievement. This is our Albergo line that continues today.(Spretti p278) Ok, now you have it mapped out. Save venice 20:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem

Quite honestly Gustav, the Barbaros if they exist in the USA, and that includes Prince Vitus, cannot be of any less interest than half the pages we have already. I am coming to the conclusion that a self proclaimed principe has to be far more interesting than the many pages such as this William Lowther (of Swillington, elder) and all his blasted relations. I'm currently having one of my re-thinks on involvement with wikipedia - there just seem to be too many "fuckwits" editing at present. I will probably look in to make sure my favourite pages are not vandalised but for the time being my involvement is going to stop there. Giano 20:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gustav, I was also able to track down some info for Antonio of the Maltese line. If you would like I can also collaborate with some others at Save Venice to create two blue links on Vitus and Antonio- there is a our Barbaro expert who was involved with the recent restoration of Palazzo Barbaro, and she knows both of them personally, I can work with her and create factual articles on the two. I will be meeting with her this evening and she can help me out with that.Save venice 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gustav, I spoke with our expert, and she has a Barbaro family record catalogued for the source material on the history of Venice up till this current year. Both individual's were also interviewed. There is enough material to develope blue links for the two heads. I will place them, as red links to be developed on the Barbaro page, and I will work with her to create both into accurate articles- they are important towards the future direction of the house. ThanksSave venice 00:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Gustav, but I am having a problem with a Deor who keeps vandalising my page, I will not continue with Wikipedia if this goes on any longer. I have sourced my red links, and they continue to be violated. I have gone back to the previous discussion pages and now see what all of this fixation is about with this family. Someone took a real person Vitus, and tried to use him in some bogus way. Now, before I waste my time with Wikipedia any longer, I would like a response to verify that my work will not be violated- PLEASE RESPOND BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER- thank youSave venice 01:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]