|
User talk:Albert KrantzWelcome!Hello Albert Krantz, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place Wikilinks to yearsWelcome! I noticed this edit and I thought I should stop by and let you know that individual years are usually not wikilinked per manual of style (MOS:UNLINKYEARS). Also language icons like (in German) is usually placed in front of the reference. Thanks, Renata (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC) BritannicusDo you have a citation for the amended birthdate and death dates for Britannicus? The original dates were from the sources listed on the page, so I'd be interested to know your source for his birthday.LaurenCole (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop going over articles and replacing Livonian Order with "Teutonic Order in Livonia". You had your opposition to your opinions at the talk page where you wanted to rename the article, working around it the way you do is not going help to bring it to a conclusion you'd like to see... thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)  You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Livonian Order move requestI empathize with your feelings about your move request of Livonian Order. Admins can pretty much decide what they want without explanation under the guise of consensus. However, there are several ways you can attempt to appeal the decision. First, you could address what you said on my talk page to the closing admin, User:JPG-GR, for his or her reasoning on deciding "no consensus" since no was provided at the request closure. If you are not satisfied with the answer, you can post an appeal at the RM talk page, WT:RM. In this case, I can see that User:JPG-GR, who tends to be conservative, probably made a good decision. Even though there was a good deal of general support for a move, the opposition had valid arguments. This, combined with a lack of agreement on the exact new title, the long discussion, and lack of sustained participation by many users made deciding "no consensus" an easy choice. Therefore, as with similar cases, I would suggest a different approach. Rather than appealing the decision, re-open the discussion in a new section (something like "Requested move continued"). Try to frame the discussion more narrowly, based on what has already been discussed previously. For example, give 2 or 3 clear choices of action such as:
and ask for participants to register "support" for their preferred action. Then notify all of the participants in the previous discussion on their respective talk pages of this new request. Ths will allow all previous participants as well as others to review the previous discussion and make a decision based on the cases put forth. An example of where I've done this before is at prunus mume. After an original RM was declared "no consensus" despite support for a move by many users, I re-opened the RM but with the "Survey" section subdivided into "Support" and "Oppose" subsections so that the participants wishes could be clearer. — AjaxSmack 02:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Bubonic PlagueHi, I presume this change to remove many interwiki links was deliberate. Could you explain? An edit summary would have helped. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
