User talk:Gritchka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hiya. Re the Mountbatten-Windsor issue. I understood as you do but while rewriting the royal naming conventions I checked with Buckingham Palace and St. James's Palace. Both said differently. For example, they said they checked what Princess Anne's surname was when publishing her banns for her first wedding in I think it was 1972. They were advised that her surname was Mountbatten-Windsor and the banns then used for both her weddings named her as that. Similarly the staff of the Prince of Wales were convinced that his surname though he never uses it is Mountbatten-Windsor. I was surprised as it appears to be different to the Order-in-Council. But they said they had had to check this before and that was their information. Presumably that means some change must have occured since 1960 or some problem occured with some aspects of the original Order-in-Council that negated what it appeared to say.

As I say, I was quite puzzled but when I spoke to press aides for the Queen, the Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal all were agreed that Mountbatten-Windsor is their surname. One actually got back to me after checking. Given that the Palace were so certain, we thought it better to go with what they said. If they don't know, who does? FearÉIREANN 23:08 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It's certainly rather strange, and contradicts virtually everything you read anywhere, but there's no doubt we should follow their actual practice rather than the original decrees. Thanks for this. Gritchka 22:28 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Swan Lake[edit]

Great work on Swan Lake! I can't believe we didn't already have an article on this. -- Tarquin 20:20 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I was browsing the deletion log and saw it listed. This is my E2 article stripped of all the gushing and jokes. Gritchka


In Tagalog, you wrote:

The difference between the first and second examples is one not of meaning but of focus, as with their English translations (I read a book versus The book was read by me). The verb comes first and is marked according to which following constituent is focused on. This syntactic arrangement is unusual in the world's languages but is typical of the Philippines, and in fact linguists call it Philippine-type marking.

It seems that the difference between Nagbasa ako ng aklat and Binasa ko ang aklat is the same difference as with active and passive voice in English. I'm curious as to what you mean by syntactic arrangement... is it the fact that the verb comes first? I can't connect the first sentence with the remaining ones. --seav 14:31, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Wikipedia in Tetum[edit]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)