User talk:StanZegel

Just as a suggestion, why not move the stuff you've added to "Holy Roman Emperor" to Emperor? It seems to me it would fit better there - it's not really about the Holy Roman Emperor. - Nunh-huh 07:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do it.

Ha! I can't type. Thanks for catching that. I also put it on the main page in DYK--great article! :) jengod 18:10, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Guy Fawkes

On my talk page, you asked about the etymology of "guy". It is definitively sourced to Guy Fawkes in my copy of Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1985, p 544. Not that the dictionary is never wrong, but I do consider it a generally credible source. Rossami (talk) 23:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you aware someone has placed your article Habsburg Spain on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates ? It seems it needs one or two minor amendments to bring it to the level required. Regards Giano 19:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, but it is not really my article; I have done only minor edits on it. But as one who loves Habsburg history, I'm glad to see that article get more circulation. StanZegel 01:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stan, thanks for wading in here. I'd like to make a few changes in the Indulgence Controversy section as you adjusted it, and I thought I should explain why. First thing: we need to move it more to a neutral point of view. We can say that Luther was upset with the abuses of indulgences, but he spoke out against their abuse rather than condemning them, even as late as 1519. In his visit to Rome, Luther really was not so much upset with the Papacy but at the clergy and residence of Rome. He'd expected more piety from them. We also need to switch the language about abuses so that we indicate that was the way Luther and his friends saw things.

I also want to add why Luther had problems with indulgences in the 1510s. Later he would reject them all as works-righteousness, but at this time, Luther was works-righteous. He saw indulgences as dangerous because people then would not feel the weight of their sins, which they must be truly sorry for, do works of penance to overcome if they were ever to recieve God's forgiveness. It was under the fire of controversy that Luther sought answers from Scriptures and came to reject indulgences and Works-righteousness entirely.

Also, there is some debate over whether or not the theses were actually posted. We take that up in the 95 Theses article. Here we should use more general language, such as "posted" or "published" to avoid coming down on one side of the issue or another.

I'm also a little unsure about how much detail of the finances of the Archbishop's See we want to get into here.

So, what do you think? Bob --CTSWyneken 11:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bob, I agree with you. I would have made more changes than I did, but I too was trying to respect the work of others and tried to fit my additions into theirs instead of doing more revision. For example, folks being "upset", the personal initiative of Charles V, etc. I think you should make the amendments you propose.

Stan, I'm glad you are on the same page with me on this. Having a personal investment in the subject, (see CTSWyneken and you'll see why), I've been revising the page from almost worthless a year or so ago to at least tolerable now. Once in awhile, I come back at it with substantial additions. I'm also working the Wikiquote page and a half dozen others. Typically, if there's an out-in-out factual error in a page or NPOV problems, I'll edit without checking with others. In cases like yours, where it is just a matter of what I think does or does not fit or sound right, I go to the user privately.

I would like to keep --although I wouldn't fight strongly about it-- the part about the reason why indulgences were being hawked at that time. I think bits of color like those help the reader understand why, not just what, happened. (Henry VIII's serial marriages are seen in a new light once one knows that his first wife had entered menopause: Henry had no legitimate male heir, and didn't want to plunge England into a revival of the War of the Roses that preceeded him for several generations). Along those lines, I have added Albert's family name, Hohenzollern, to the first reference to him, so that an astute reader can realize the early extent of that family's influence. If Albert had not desired to become a Kurfürst, would Luther have ever been provoked into his course of thought?

Without the pressure to shut up, likely Luther would have founded his own order... 8-) I have no probs leaving it. It flows, is in logical order and does not do tangents...

While you are in there, consider also adding the color about Luther's Tower Experience. The foundations of the tower were recently discovered in Wittenberg.

Yes, they have discovered the toliet that was present when Luther lived in the Black Cloister. However, the story about Luther coming to theological insights there has no basis in fact. The word "cloaca" referred to the whole tower in which the toilet was located. Luther's study was in that tower. No one, other that psychologist Erickson actually gives this rumor any creedance.

I think of Erickson as just fantasy and imagination, but I believe Bainton refers several times to Luther's chronic constipation. The story seems plausible to me, and it humanizes the intellectual giant that was Luther.

When I visited Wittenberg in 1984, I did note with interest the toilet in the base of the tower, off the room with the coin collection. Was I standing at the site of Soli Fidei? I know it is said that Luther's office was in a tower, but towers were often the stairwells, so I was surprised to read that office bit a few years ago when the foundations were discovered. Perhaps the Clo story is anti-Luther propaganda designed to minimize his theology by discrediting its surroundings. I'm disappointed it is in dispute, because I think color adds to much history, but in a work of reference such as this, the knowledge of scholars like you must take precedence, to maintain the credibility of the work.--StanZegel 23:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A point that needs research: the article says Tetzel was selling plenary indulgences; yet the illustration at indulgence shows one, but it is a partial indulgence. Your scholarly resources will enable you to confirm or correct the plenary phrase.

It was indeed a plenary indulgence. Perhaps a little note in the photo caption would do to correct the mistaken impression. Tetzel's jingle is also popular: "when a coin in the coffer clings, a soul from purgatory springs.

I'm not sure what such a note could say when the document's urtext says "... erlasse Dir alle Strafen auf zehn Tage." Perhaps Tetzel had a variety of Ablasse for sale, at different prices? Some partials, and the upgrades to plenaries?--StanZegel 23:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to also direct your attention to Lutheranism, where I have made a few minor additions. I think the LCMS should be shown to have as Districts what ELCA calls Synods. I didn't make that change because I didn't know what WELS has. Other parts of the article are gibberish, and I cannot make out what the original sense was intended to be.

• sigh* yet another to fix....

As to the actual posting of the theses, I have made some revisions. See what you think.--StanZegel 16:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They look good! Glad to work with you! -- Bob. --CTSWyneken 22:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've looked at your user page and am very impressed that you are taking time to work on Wiki. It is wonderful that someone with your qualifications is willing to do so. Also, after reading the Talk archives on the Luther page, I need to keep in check my own tendency to push "edit this page" without first reading the Talk to see if my intended "correction" hasn't already been hashed out, back-and-forth, by others in the past. In my five dozen trips around the sun, I like to think I've learned the hard way Golden Rule Number Two: "Do Not Overreact" and thus avoid impulsive behavior. I have not yet reached my Hundred Days on Wikipedia, and need to keep that other lesson in mind. Regards, --StanZegel 23:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Stan. Reply to you on my talk page. --CTSWyneken 12:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See the LCMS talk. Thanks! -- Bob --CTSWyneken 02:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bob, I didn't make any edits to Law and Gospel; my work was in Church Structure. I hope you feel that what I did there results in a fair statement of the de facto situation. --StanZegel 04:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't think you did, but I just wanted to warn you what was up. I haven't looked at your structure changes yet, but I'm sure it's a big improvement. -- Bob

hey, if you have some extra times in the next few days, i'd appreciate it if you could copyedit John Brown (abolitionist) for me. if you can't do it, that's no problem, of course. be well, Kingturtle 06:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it.--StanZegel 06:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Very nice work on those trees. Wondering if you could include some info on how you produced them --what software, (free software?) etc. See also Wikipedia:Timeline and m:EasyTimeline for other systems. Sinreg -SV|t 03:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you consider Habsburg more correct than Hapsburg? I've seen both about equally, to the best of my recollection (although I've dealt with variants in so many languages that a specifically English-language standard of naming might have escaped my notice). -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Habsburg is the only spelling used by the family itself --the ultimate authority on the matter. It is the only spelling used in official documents. It is what serious scholars use. Only the popular press seems to perpetuate this invented spelling based upon the similarity of the "B" and "P" sounds. --StanZegel 13:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However in the case of The Saint the spelling "Hapsburg" is correct. Please go to this site for graphic proof of this. The proper spelling of the book title -- whether correct or not -- is The Saint and the Hapsburg Necklace. If and when anyone bothers to write an article on this particular book, please feel free to add a section on the spelling discrepency. 23skidoo 12:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Thanks for making the correction. --StanZegel 12:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. And I wasn't being facetous about the possibility of there being an article as I've noticed a couple of Saint books and films have been written about already. I'm not familiar with this particular volume so I won't be writing one myself, but if I see an article emerge I'll bear this information in mind. Cheers! 23skidoo 13:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the talk:Simon Templar and noticed your "revert again" phrase. I'm sorry, I wasn't intending to start an edit war, I was working from a search list and thought I hadn't saved my edit the first time. I should have read looked for a comment on talk first. Regards... --StanZegel 13:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no worries! I added a follow-up comment to make it clear (hopefully) that I wasn't intending to say you were wrong re: the spelling, only that the Saint book and presumably the ghost writer were erroneous, but their spelling is on the record for that volume. Cheers! 23skidoo 14:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to come across a link to this old discussion while checking out a "What Links Here" with regards to Simon Templar. You might be interested to know that there is now an article for The Saint and the Hapsburg Necklace, in which I acknowledge that the spelling is not necessarily the correct one. Cheers! 23skidoo 00:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reaction. That is exactly why I think the templates are perfect for this. They can include all different styles such as those you mentioned. I am quietly confident that these will work. Thanks again, User:Jtdirl 20:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stan, thanks for your message. I discovered your family trees just yesterday, they are really awesome! Martg76 12:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it can be that it is Grand Master coat of arms. You see, I have made at the begining CoA of dr Bruno Platter (current Grand Master) it was based on this black-white version. I have asked my German friend to ask at order office what colours should I use, so he will check it (now I have a break from Wikipedia till october). This CoA is based on German post mark made on 800 years of Teutonic Order. On that mark there was that CoA and seal and sentence like: "800 Jahre von Deutscher Orden", that post mark had colours, so I had known what colours should I use. That's why I have written that it is order CoA. On their home site is simple logo with black cross on a white field. Oh, it isn't only cardinals hat (cardinal have red hat), here are catholic heraldical templates. -PioM _EN DE PL 14:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. It is very interesting. I had not been aware that the hat was used by ranks other than Cardinal. I look forward to seeing more of your excellent work on here!--StanZegel 15:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. -PioM _EN DE PL 20:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Hiya,

The discussion seems to have gone all quiet on the proposed styles solution, though I have tried to get it going again. There is from what was said a clear consensus on using this solution. I'm going to start putting in the papal box to see if it will work. Is that OK with you?

User:Jtdirl 21:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you are doing it. Starting with the Popes is a good idea, because it is probably least controversial there, but I hope it quickly spreads to the royal pages where it is sorely needed too. Regards. --StanZegel 22:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did the grammar fixup you asked me to do on the German version of the article, no problem. It was perfectly understandable. Martg76 22:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up my accident at that page. I really have no idea how that happened. Martg76 19:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed your correction of a date in the succession box for Victoria. But should the day and month be included in the box? Our friend Silver horse is adding them. --ClemMcGann 13:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the days within the year are needed in the box, but I thought that if they are there they might as well be correct. Silverhorse seems to be charging about wildly, and attempts are being made to rein him in with a RfC, which I support. I think he is at risk of being gelded on Wiki if he does not start to look before he leaps. --StanZegel 14:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then let us remove them. the box is meant to be a summary.

Did you see Silverhorse's (or rather an ip sockpuppet) reply to said RfC?--ClemMcGann 15:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(A discussion about use of Surnames in the lead of the article on Victoria of the United Kingdom has been moved to Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom/Surname.)

Thank you for your encouragement. The idea comes in fact from the French corresponding template. I simply translated it and updated it a bit. If you want to thank me please help me making out of Belgium a featured article. It really needs a native speaker for checking the English and making it more concise. --Vb 10:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran theology is quite a bit different than that of most denominations that consider themselves Protestant. For instance, Lutherans have a theology of the Means of Grace, by which we mean that God has chosen to work through His Word and through the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. We believe that God the Holy Spirit uses God's Word to create faith in the hearts of unbelievers, that He actually saves people through baptism, even babies and that He gives His real body and real blood in, with and under the elements of the Lord's supper. We do not believe in "accepting Jesus as Savior," that salvation is conditional on good behavior, etc. We also believe that it is good to retain the ancient worship orders of the church, and any traditions that support the gospel. That's just for starters. So we don't we too well with Protestants. A similar list can be made for the Catholic, Orthodox, holiness and other Christian traditions. Since we take Luther seriously, it is at best annoying to have our tradition left out of an article on Luther. 8-) Does that help? --CTSWyneken 00:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia. Arrigo 15:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stan, I noticed you moved the meta-lameness to the beginning of the page. Of course it is right to think that it is the flower of all edit warring. BUT, please think about new readers: they do not yet know the basics of this page. I feel that it is wrong to offer them firstly an example, understanding and appreciating which requires knowledge what are usual lame edit wars and what sort of basic wars are included in the page. THEN, after reading some more usual cases, a new reader can better relate to the meta level. That has been the reason why I placed Maeta in the end. At the start, it spils, and it may be a tad incomprehensible. I wrote at the time "I feel that meta-lameness should be only after there are other, usual examples - I think mostly readers when making this edit". So, could you kindly revert your edit. 217.140.193.123 16:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Stan, for your welcome. I do not mean to offend. I have a few articles that I have created, and I know that there is a sense of proprietorship. Am I compelled to have a "red" colored signature? I would rather have a different color if I would be permitted. I guess that different colors set one out as an editor or a higher up. I understand that. I love to edit things for "understandibility." Thank you for your cordial welcome. Cordially, David Boisclair drboisclair 05:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, fellow Editor/Scholar Stan, a matter has come up which I believe requires your timely attention: the proposal to remove the biographical infoboxes. You can see in the Martin Luther article that the infobox on the top right is a candidate for deletion. I would ask that you might respond in the debate. I believe that they should be retained; however, you might want them deleted for the reasons that are given there. I think that it is inadvisable to delete them in a wholesale manner. Cordially, drboisclair 21:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, David. I have posted my zwei gröschenswert. --StanZegel 05:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you are losing an argument, you can always tell the other party "You are in denial, so it's useless to continue the discussion." Or instead of such abuse, you could politely say you're no longer interested.

Would it be accurate to say that as evidence that the "6 June 1942" date format was used in English as early as A.D. 1215, you cited a translation into 20th-century English, of a document written in 1215 in Latin, and that that translation used the "6th day of June 1941" date format rather than the "6 June 1942" date format? Michael Hardy 01:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like what David has added here. I think we have a valuable new ally. Nicht Wahr? Bob --CTSWyneken 12:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, es stimmt! Did u receive the e-mail I sent you Sunday? I have something non-Wiki related I'd like to communicate with u about, and I didn't know if that e-mail was working or the appropriate address. --StanZegel (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stan, thought you might want to weigh in on the paragraph I wrote and posted in Talk:Martin Luther. Hope all is well. Our eternal vigilance will prevail over vandals to keep our Rome from being sacked! drboisclair 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David, I think you have distilled the history very well. What do you think about adding just a dash of color, viz:

Forstalling any objections from friends against Katharina, Luther acted quickly: on the evening of Tuesday, June 13, 1525, standing outside the church door (as was the custom), Luther was legally married to Katharina, whom he would affectionately call "Katy." ...

The Luthers had three boys and three girls:

• Hans, born June 7, 1526, studied law, became a court advisor, and died in 1575.
• Elizabeth, born December 10, 1527, prematurely died in August 1528.
• Magdalena, born May 5, 1529, died in her father's arms September 20, 1542.
• Martin, Jr., born November 9, 1531, studied theology but never had a regular pastoral call before his death in 1565.
• Paul, born January 28, 1533, became a physician. He fathered six children before his death in 1593 and the male line of the Luther family continued through him to John Ernest, ending in 1759.
• Margaretha, born December 17, 1534, married George von Kunheim of that noble, wealthy Prussian family, but died in 1570 at the age of 36. Her descendants have continued to the present time.

--StanZegel (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea. I think that we are on the same page as far as militating against sola verba: add some spice in terms of tables, illustrations, graphs, et cetera. I wanted to add information on the family tree, and this emendation does it. drboisclair 10:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has been oved to the Martin Luther talk page so that others can participate. --StanZegel (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, I haven't figured out how this works. Any tips? Bob --CTSWyneken 00:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stan,

I respect the role you play in regulating Wiki for Chicagoland, and after my perusal of places such as Winfield, Wheaton, West Chicago, Barrington, and others, I can say you do a fine job. However, I have to disagree with your assessment of recent changes made to Winfield as 'blatant commercialism'. While the bit about the schools may have been to change, John's Buffet is by far the oldest and most relevant business in Winfield, trumping the gargantuan Central DuPage Hospital by some 40 years. It is an historical part of the town, and if you have never been, you ought to peek your head in some time. The founder, John Karwoski, basically created Winfield. He built and founded the fire department, was its first chief, built City Hall as his own house, before selling it to the Village when the present building of John's Buffet was constructed in 1947, and basically helped run the town, passing away at 94 years old in the early 80s. If you mention CDH, which is really more relevant for DuPage County than for Winfield, you must mention something that at least Winfield can be proud of, rather than overwhelmed by. If you took a poll of Winfield residents, I claim that would be John's Buffet.

Yours from Sweden,

Jason Francis jjfranci@hotmail.com

Hi, Stan, I added a little more to the final paragraph in Martin Luther, and I don't know what Bob is going to think when he comes up for air. I must say that I agree with Roland Bainton, but I also agree with the former Lutheran Richard John Neuhaus: that Luther was anti-Judaic rather than anti-Semitic. Perhaps what should be done is get rid of Against the Jews and their Lies while leaving the historical notice that it was mean and ill-tempered. No one knows the vicious blasphemy that prompted Luther's book. I guess Luther over reacted because He was a deeply religious man. The Jews must learn to forgive. There was an interesting play in the 60s called something like The Man in the Glass Booth about the trial of a Holocaust perpetrator. The man was not a Nazi or a Holocaust perpetrator at all: he had one of those concentration camp numbers tatooed on his arm. He was a Jew, who was consumed with his hatred.

I believe that we should keep the title page of Against the Jews and their Lies out of the article. Humus sapiens (humus is decaying animal and vegetable waste is it not?) wants expert views, so I have appended Roland Bainton, a noted Luther scholar. Yours as a frustrated scholar and editor, Dave drboisclair 10:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, Wikiquote contains this quote which, if we can put a date on it for context, would illustrate the racial vs religious distinction:

"When we are inclined to boast of our position [as Christians] we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are." Martin Luther, That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, Luther's Works, American Edition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962), Volume 45, Page 201.

I think, too, that citing its Weimar Ausgabe or other Urtext, not just the English translation collection, would be better, but Bob is the authority on that sort of thing. This page may also be a useful link. I agree that the Jews should learn Christian charity: forgiveness and not consuming hatred. Yes, insults may have been given, injustices may been done, but that happens to everybody. Get over it! Get on with life! Competitive Victimhood is so unbecoming. --StanZegel (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, I guess you are up and about early as I am. Your additions to the Martin Luther are much appreciated and a tribute to your genius. Thank you! drboisclair 11:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, as I look more into this, and read the summary of the 1543 pamphlet, I cannot help but see the parallels in those recommended actions in context with those done against the Palastinians since 1948. I guess it matters whose ox is being gored. --StanZegel (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are so right about this. It had even been discussed in Israel about deporting all of the Palestinians out of the region. I remember my professor Dr. Erich Kiehl, who spent many years in the Holy Land, who said that the Israelis should not have been simply given the land of others, namely the Palestinians. Both must seek to coexist. Thank you for your even temperedness and editorial genius. drboisclair 11:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Biblical Archeologist told me that in today's Holy Land, Christians do not count at all. I think we are only 3% of the population. This was brought home to me in the aftermath of a massacre by a militant Zionist at the Tomb of the Patriarchs: Jews and Muslims were henceforth to use separate doors, reserved exclusively for them. No door for Christians who might want to visit. (I think that for our $3 billion sent there annually, we might be allowed in the door?) --StanZegel (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, I hope that I have not fallen afoul of an administrator Mr./Mrs. Jayjg, with whom I have gone back and forth on the "Luther and the Jews": I have taken the liberty of reverting the paragraph to the way it was a week ago, and added some of his stuff. Please look at the bottom of the talk page. I hope that Bob will not be upset with this mishevah. Reverting has excised your helpful comments. I wish we could just wave a magic wand and erase "On the Jews and their Lies" Where men are great, great are their failings. Broodingly yours, drboisclair 20:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, I have backed down from reverting the "Luther and Judaism" paragraph. Jayjg, Humus Sapiens, and Slrubenstein have made changes to the article. One does not realize the fire one is playing with when one takes on issues like "Anti-Semitism." IMHO, Luther was so wrong to write On the Jews and Their Lies, and I have concluded to leave it at that. I resonate with your good points on this whole issue. Cordially, drboisclair 23:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, perhaps the Talk:Martin Luther page should be archived again. Of course, my faux pas should rightly stand out to accuse me. You may want to add Bob's quote from Luther's last sermon. The conversation in User_talk:Drboisclair and User_talk:Slrubenstein might interest you. Perhaps, we will have to let this die down. Bob may not be pleased. drboisclair 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, please undo the damage I have done if you please. I just did not want anyone to do violence to what you and Bob have so well done. drboisclair 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now you can go back in and fix up the title page link, etc. --StanZegel (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Stan, Blessings. And done! May the vandals stay away!drboisclair 17:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I tried to fix Albert of Saxony-Teschen... but it still redirects to a non-existant page. Perhaps it should go to Albert, Duke of Saxony? Indium 03:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should go to Albert of Saxe-Teschen, which I am creating. --StanZegel (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just noticed. Sorry. Though maybe it should be linked from the page I mentioned, and the Rulers of Saxony page if it's appropriate. I'm not familiar with the subject, so I can't say. Indium 04:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He was never a ruler of Saxony, merely a younger son of one. He is more involved in Austrian history through his marriage to Marie Christine of Austria the favorite daughter of the great empress Maria Theresa. I'm glad you are policing red links! --StanZegel (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, please see the remark I made about some contributors trying to emphasize the scatological with Luther. In the end they trivialize themselves with this garbage. drboisclair 07:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave I think your response on Toilet Theology was very well written. Good for you!

On one of my trips to Wittenberg, I happened to be in the basement of the Lutherhaus and noticed that there, under the spiral stairs that are the reason for the round towers, was the loo. I remembered Luther talking about his sudden realization when he was "in the tower" and references (in Bainton?) to his lifelong constipation and contemplation. "Eureka," I thought "I am at the site of Sola Fide!" Later I read news accounts of the excavation of another tower base with the speculation that this might be the tower in which Luther had his office. Thus a revelation while "in the tower" may not have been in the context often thought. --StanZegel (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have someone constantly trying to put Walther's view on slavery into a very short, sketchy article on him. Want to join the fun? --CTSWyneken 02:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! By the way, if you click your "preferences" tab and then (1) enter your e-mail address and (2) check the "Enable email from other users" box, it allows someone like me to send you e-mail for things not worthy of permanent preservation in the talk pages, without revealing your e-mail addres to the whole world at large. --StanZegel (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the Missouri fathers, the slavery question was irrelevant. None of them were slaveholders and neither side used the scripture correctly. From their perspective, they were outsiders looking in. So, the position was not particularly important to them. BTW, I did enable email, but do not have a clue how to use it.

--Bob 20:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See if {{biohead}} now works properly. And on its Talk page add Usage instructions. (SEWilco 04:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Stan, even as a native speaker I can't make out the meaning of the bell's names. I suspect that they were named for people who made some donations when they were molded. BTW, I'd suggest a more extensive explanation of the beer curfew bell, which didn't make any sense to me before reading the Stephansdom website. Best, Martg76 18:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you are standing your ground. You are trying to let Luther speak for himself. I thought that we were through with this wrangling. O well. Dave drboisclair 19:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues, perhaps a little explanation is in order. This is not "wrangling", for me the issue is very serious. I am sorry you feel this way and it was enough a single anonymous vandal to destroy our compromise and understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong: throughout his entire life, ML held that the Jews do not deserve to live in the midst of Chrisitians and tried to convert them by any means, from "love" to violence. He never accepted that another faith has the right to exist. We all know what followed, another instance of that must be prevented at any cost. Your initial reaction is a good evidence (and I must say, a huge surprise for me) that a lot still needs to be done for education and reconciliation. Humus sapiens 02:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colleague Humus: I don't know that you are right about Luther's "lifelong feelings that Jews do not deserve to live amidst Christians." Tired to seeing only others' characterizations of the 1543 pamphlet, I now reading it cover to cover to see what he really says, and not what others say he said. When I get done with the 66,000 words of it, I'll be in a better position to say. But from what I have read so far, I have not yet gotten that impression. Perhaps it will develop in later pages. --StanZegel (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) In the meanwhile, perhaps pages 24 et seq from here might help answer your question. --StanZegel (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, I have taken the liberty to remove the sentences about "controversy" from the two Luther articles. I think that those who argue for removal have sufficiently proved their point. The question may have generated much posting back and forth here, but not in the world out there. I have been mentioning your proposal. drboisclair 17:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up an AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naming conventions (Western nobility). That article was created in effect as an alternative to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and then rewritten by the author, in a cut and paste. I strongly disapprove of someone doing a cut and paste of one article, moving it to a new (badly named) page and editing it without a consensus (or even it would seem an awareness among people that this new page existed). Feel free to cast a vote on the issue. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 23:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stan! Thanks for your message. I don't know the actual etymology, but some sites I found with google maintain it is celtic. The German wikipedia site claims that Vindobona originally was a Celtic settlement. BTW, you are doing a great job on Stephansdom. You must be putting an incredible amount of time into this!. Martg76 18:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on this addressed to Noel has turned up on discussion for badger - persons - traders.

If you really need to translate this, I'd definitely prefer the adult version (although it is a diminutive form). Note that Steffl is also a department store ([1]) near Stephansdom. Martg76 09:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Mister Zegel!

Look at "Benutzer-Diskussion:TuL-Mitglied".

Regards,

TuL-Mitglied

Stan Sorry see drover Neil

Hi Stan! I was not offended at all by your humerous message. I just didn't respond because I was very busy in real life last week. Actually, I was thinking about submitting Stephansdom to Wikipedia:Peer review because you have been bringing it very close to featured article status. Martg76 10:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You sir have one of the funniest (in a good way) user pages on Wikipedia. Chapeau bas and keep up the good work . Dunemaire 15:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criteria for a DIY artist to have an article? From your comment, it would appear that you have a personal vendetta against anarchists, or are simply not familiar with anarchism. I hope this isn't the case, as I would expect better from a Wikipedian as dedicated as yourself. Daykart 19:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, please see the talk page re: the map you are inserting. In short, it is misleading and unencyclopedic to lump the public land (that belonged to the Ottoman Empire and then the British Mandate) together with private Palestinian land vs. Jewish-owned land.

Of course you or anyone else is entitled to hold any opinion but it is wrong to promote extreme POV in a serious encyclopedia. I hoped to avoid this, but it is disturbing to observe that in Martin Luther, Martin Luther and the Jews and now in British Mandate of Palestine you are a little too quick to lay blame on the Jews and absolve/support those who target them. I can support this observation with links. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, I am sorry if I reverted something you were going to revert. Please go into the battle article On the Jews and Their Lies and make the revisions you wanted to. drboisclair 12:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stan! Thanks for your message. I like the way you implemented the pictures, at least I can't think of a better way of linking the section headings to the diagrams. Great work on the article! Guten Rutsch, Martg76 09:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you may see by looking at the history page, I came very late to this game, having been informed of all sorts of ad hominem blogs etc. on this page (that was not even known to me until my intervention).

As you wil see, I have only changed some misinformation, added some links to my work as to counterbalance the constant stream of attacks. Again, pleae READ the history page, I added even a pro AND contra page which gives equal time to my ' opponents'

So where do you see self-promoton?

As far as I am concerned you may as well delete the whole page,... I do not need it.

Michael Witzel

You will note that Witzel's first edit was to remove all links critical of his work. [2]. He has consistently been removing criticism from the page [3] - with no discussion on the talk page - despite repeatedly asking for explanation and dialogue there. The flamewar links were added in the Rigveda page originally by Dab to attack rival Talageri but are not reputable enough to add to Witzel's page. Most of the critical links in the page are ones that Witzel has personally responded to off of wikipedia. It may not be self promotion but is definetely not NPOV because of his attempts to stifle citicism. And is any criticism 'witch hunting' ? if sources are cited and changes discussed (please see talk)? He is criticized by Hindu groups for his bias. Also, I looked for his pro and contra page that he mentions he in history but could not find it. --Pranathi 04:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the pro and contra page now. But, again, it points to a Witzel page, representing his POV. --Pranathi 06:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted <<Maître>> on the grounds that it is an honorific, not a name. So it is, but it is also the professional designation in metropolitan French to indicate a lawyer and is invariably used with Blum's name. However, accepting for argument's sake that it is inappropriate in a Wikipedia article, would you kindly look at the article John Hewson (former Australian federal Opposition Leader): the first words of the article are, "Dr John Hewson...." I had a little bit of a tussle myself over my attempt to delete this honorific but didn't feel I had standing to press the issue. Do you have any comments? Masalai 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Styles or titles are usually used in the lead of an article about that person, so I think there is no problem with Hewson, but Suzanne Blum is but a player in the article about the Duchess of Windsor. We have similar confusion problems with German bios where the uninitiated may not realize that say, Georg Ritter von Schönerer does not have a middle name of "Ritter" because that is a title (and an explanatory template has been added to help the reader avoid such mistakes. Perhaps if italics were used to show that the honorific is different from her proper name, the problem might be eliminated: Maître Suzanne Blum What do you think? --StanZegel (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, why not.Masalai 03:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, I think that Mr. Rubenstein would like your opinion on this as I would [4] David drboisclair 00:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[5] -- why are you calling it a "self-promotion page"? I created the article, and I can assure you that I am not Mr. Witzel, who appears to be editing as Witzel (talk · contribs), and far from edit-warring is quite restrained in only removing the worst "online witchhunting" links that are added to the article. In any case, the proper template to add if you feel an article is "self-promotional" would be {{importance}} or {{advert}}. I am sorry I don't know Mr Witzel's birthday. If you feel it is lacking, you may try inquiring with User:Witzel or write to Harvard. regards, dab (ᛏ) 07:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Stan, your change of Wallis, the Duchess of Windsor to Wallis, Duchess of Windsor was incorrect. WP changed policy on the matter about 6-8 weeks ago. The reason was simple: the format <name>, <title of title> is actually the format used for divorced wives of peers, eg Diana, Princess of Wales, Sarah, Duchess of York, etc. After a vote it was decided that wives and widows would not be put in that form because it was causing confusion over who was divorced and who was not. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall strictly speaking would be Camilla's title if she and Charles divorced, not her title now. So all current spouses or widows were moved to include the which is less inaccurate. So we have the divorced Diana, Princess of Wales but the married Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall. Technically Wallis, following standard maiden name rules should be at Wallis Simpson but for some reason people want to leave her and Diana at their live titles. (And we call this an encyclopædia!!!) The consensus on including the was so overwhelming it was practically unanimous. (It wasn't thought necessary to change Charles, Prince of Wales etc because people are hardly likely to think that in that form it refers to someone called Charles who is the ex-wife of the Prince of Wales!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Jim. I appreciate it. --StanZegel (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stan. Sorry for not responding to your request. I haven't been logged in much recently, since I'm currently very busy. Best, Martg76 22:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up for deletion again - Cordially SirIsaacBrock

Hello Stan,

Nice to meet you!

I like your User Page picture with the 2000 books :) When I started reading I thought you were a history teacher in retirement. People like you are the backbone of Wikipedia !!

Martin Luther and the Jews do you disagree with this article ?? SirIsaacBrock 00:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, as it is today, it is one-sided and repetitive, pushing a distorted POV about a very minor part of the entire work of Luther out of proportion. --StanZegel (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HabsburgStammtafelGruftMTheresia56.png seems to imply that Marie Antoinette is buried in the Kaisergruft, or am I wrong? Marie-Antoinette, to my best knowledge, is buried in Saint Denis Basilica. David.Monniaux 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her number is preceded by an "x" which the boxed "subscript numbers" explanation on the article's page explains "When necessary to establish continuity, a person buried elsewhere is assigned a number preceded by an x and then listed in the Selected Other Habsburgs section." but obviously that is not sufficient. I'll add that caution to the graphics pages too. Thanks for pointing out the situation. --StanZegel (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmh. I'm actually not 100% sure she's in Saint-Denis. Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette do have a tomb in Saint-Denis, but I don't know whether their remains are there. I'd better ask around. David.Monniaux 18:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come by and vote. Don't talk though. --CTSWyneken 11:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your kind look at this fledgling article is kindly invited! drboisclair 20:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, this will be the last vote on this paragraph. --CTSWyneken 11:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stan:

Would you take a look at the page? I do not have the time to check it and a lot of edits by an anonymous user have been done today. --CTSWyneken 23:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi StanZegel, first of all I have to congratulate you on your extensive work on the Kaisergruft in Vienna, just amazing work. Quick questions: what exactly was the name of this archduke here Archduke Leopold Alfons of Austria, because I am getting conflicting informations. Was he Leopold Maria Alphons, or Leopold Alphons or Leopold Alfons, I think there are some names missing either in the article's name and even in the article itself. I just can't find more info on him, that's why I thought maybe you would know.

Hi Gryffindor. I have admired the work you have been doing in Central European history. I'm flattered to be asked something by you! I believe his name as Leopold Maria Alfons... as I have it in the article, which I based in part upon his entry in the online Gotha, and the rest from his obituary. I see someone changed the lead of the article to omit the Alphons. --StanZegel (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: the offsprings of the electors (Kurfürsten) of Saxony and Bavaria for example, what title did they have? were they Kurfürsten and Kurfürstinnen as well, or only their parents were that? They couldn't be Prince or Princess yet I believe, since that only started after they became kingdoms later on. I tried to check this Online Gotha here but maybe you know some more things about this? Looking forward, thanks alot. Gryffindor 10:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen the offspring referred to as Kurfürsten. For example Albert of Saxe-Teschen was the son of a Kurfürst, but did not carry that title. And the Kaiser was also a Kurfürst because he was King of Bohemia, but his offspring were always Erzherzogen, not Kurfürsten. I believe only the actual Kurfürst himself used the title. --StanZegel (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stan, thank you for your help and your comments. So the children of the Kurfürsten were.... ? Dukes? Duchess? For example on the article Marie-Josèphe of Saxony, do you know what she was? you can answer on my talk page, otherwise I wouldn't even notice your response, dankeschön! Gryffindor 19:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your information, I just received a flood of information from Lethiere as well. Ok, so in this case it is assumed that she was "Prinzessin v. Sachsen", whereas Albert of Saxe-Teschen was "Herzog", ja? Gryffindor 07:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to have done a lot of work on this page, do you have any objections to me changing the title of this page to Imperial crypt in Vienna? The current name isn't descriptive enough. The one thing I'm not sure about is if crypt should be capitalized. The standard is to not capitalize unless it's a proper name. Thanks for your time. --JeffW 16:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Imperial Crypt (Vienna)" would be more in line with standard usage of distinguishing variations.

(I used to work with MCP back in the 1970s. IBM friends couldn't understand why I didn't need 50 cards of JCL, and could have only a RUN THISPROGRAM without specifying where on disk the files were, what to do with abends, etc., they couldn't believe a computer could be smart!)

--StanZegel (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. If only the sales people knew how to sell the things.

Is Imperial Crypt its proper name then? Not the imperial crypt? --JeffW 23:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The ..." is not normally used for titles of articles in Wikipedia. --StanZegel (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I was getting at is should the C in Crypt be capitalized. It doesn't matter now, as I've moved it as you suggested. --JeffW 13:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your request for the obituary of Leopold Lorraine on the newspaper request page. Do you have his basic information? If so, I apologize for the repetition, but if not, here it is:

Name:	Leopold Lorraine [1] 
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Birth:	30 January 1897	Zagreb 
Death:	14 March 1958	Willimantic, Connecticut
Father:	Leopold Salvator of Austria (1863-1931) 
Mother:	Blanca of Spain (1868-1949)

Misc. Notes
took surname Lorraine on accepting American citizenship in 1953.
 
Spouses
—————————————————————————————————————————————
1:	Freiin Dagmar Nicolcis-Podrinje [1]
Birth:	5 July 1898	Agram
Death:	15 November 1967	Lausanne
Father:	Freiherr Wladimir Nicolcis-Podrinje
Mother:	Baronessa Ella Scotti

Misc. Notes
created Freifrau von Wolfenau 12 Feb 1922 by the head of the Grand Ducal House of Tuscany.

Marriage:	12 April 1919	Vienna, Austria
Divorce:	1931	
Children:	Maria Gabrielle (1922-)

—————————————————————————————————————————————
2:	Alice Coburn
Birth:	20 January 1894	New York
Death:	25 August 1960	New York
Father:	Alexander Coburn
Mother:	Ann Gibson
Marriage:	1932	

Sources
1. Willis, Daniel (also known as Daniel A. Brewer-Ward), The Descendants of Louis XIII, Clearfield Co., Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, 1999, ISBN 0-8063-4942-5, p. 626.

Also, if you don't have the obit already, let me know and I'll send it to you. - Nunh-huh 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, you seem to have stopped editing Wikipedia other than to be summoned by your friends for reverts. Either that, or you are editing with a different account otherwise. Either way, it's disruptive and I'm requesting that you stop. Please either return as a regular editor with one account, or stop arriving on the scene only to revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Stan, would you look through the image gallery for a pic of a book or a library which is in the public domain. I've only had time to do a quick search, since this is a busy day for today. I need it for my RfA thank you notes. Bob--CTSWyneken 19:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

Dear Stan: If you look at the Luther page, the German Bible section, you'll note I'm starting articles on the smaller figures without them. Aurogallus is a bit thin. There's also no article on the Castle Church. If you'd like to do something quieter, I'd love help with them. --CTSWyneken 02:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		"I, Drboisclair, award to User:StanZegel this barnstar as long overdue for his fine, incomparable contribution to this website in, e.g. developing a crossreference system, which assists the Wikipedia reader in getting as much information as possible in as little time as possible. Your expertise and class enhance cyberspace."--Drboisclair 15:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stan: I've just seeded this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Since you have a soft heart for these Holy Roman Empire types, I thought you'd like to know its out there and could use some work. --CTSWyneken 13:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I put my statement up, stating an age was not required. That is why it is not there; it is not because I deliberately omitted it. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 15:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you created a number of them, I'd like to bring to your attention, the suggestion I made on Template talk:German title Freiherr#Merging "German title" templates that the German title templates might be merged into one. --Swift 06:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As they say in the movies, "oh be-have". Seriously, though, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so don't make joke edits, as you did to paternoster. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive).

JRawle (Talk) 11:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation of the name that I heard some years ago was the similarity to a string of prayer beads. (I didn't add it to this article.) So when I saw your edit – made without a giving a reference, and without explaining it on the talk page – removing what I thought was the correct explanation and substituting one that seems more humourous, I naturally thought it was a joke edit. Perhaps instead of that template you would have preferred a vandalism warning? But either way it wasn't meant as a provocation – I regularly warn people for vandalism or inappropriate edits, simply as a way of contributing to the Wikipedia community. (It was intentionally the least severe warning I could find.)

I think there is room in the article for both explanations of the name, seeing as we don't actually have a source for either of them at the moment. JRawle (Talk) 14:26, 23 August

2006 (UTC)

Citing both sounds good to me. That is a problem with folk etymology: the authoritative sources are few. I think the "oh my God what is this infernal contraption???" explanation is the more plausible of the origin, with the rosary explanation being a deriviative to explain the title after it had reached popular use. Otherwise, why was the lift not called a "rosary" right off the bat? But as you say, formal documentation of the popular name is lacking. (We have a similar situation with "Guy" as term for a person. It seems to have originated in the streets of New York, where the Yiddish term "goy" had that usage. But someone of a different cultural background and perhaps more highly educated, speculated it came from the name of Guy Falkes, a minor character out of British history unknown west of Cornwall, and that has been published. Speculation, all. --StanZegel (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably referring to Guy Fawkes, who is not that unknown. And I did do some research concerning the reason why this type of lift was called paternoster, and I didn't come across that rather humorous-sounding explanation you have provided. Not once. All the best, <KF> 13:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also go for cite both as the way forward, at least until an authoritative source can be found. 82.45.248.177 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia entry for 'Paternosteraufzug' [[6]] lists the rosary as the source of the name, with some more details. While not an external reference, this sounds much more believable that the anecdotal prayer.. Sejtam 05:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in joining WikiProject Austria? You can join here. Kingjeff 00:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to check the several genealogical trees mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek pedigree of Empress Sisi. Maed 02:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in Lutheranism WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Lutheranism. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

--CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have problem with Joan of Spain and her date of birth. Richard Reifenscheid in Die Habsburger in Lebensbildern, von Rudolf I. bis Karl I. (Verlag Hugendubel, Kreuzlingen 2000) says that she was born June 26, 1537. All Wikipedias and B. Hamann Die Habsburger. Ein biographisches Lexikon (München 1993) say that she was born June 24, 1535. Could you comment it? What do you think about it? What is reliable source of information? Greetings :-), Wiktoryn 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consult Lexikon des Mittelalter. I don't know what it would show. My usual reference is Heraldry of the Royal Familes of Europe (Louda & Maclagan) and it shows 1537. Paul Theroff's Online Gotha doesn't start until 1700 Spain, so it did not show anything. I'm sorry I cannot find any more on this for you. --StanZegel (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:WinfieldRegister Index727 20070703 Page 01.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. BetacommandBot 15:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to call your attention to a new article about Palatinal Crypt, the burial place of the Hungarian Habsburgs. Your genealogical tables in the Kaisersgruft article are really cool, and I hope that some day you will have time and energy to create a similar table for this new (and yet imperfect) sister article. Best wishes Zello 01:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stan, The St Stephen's Cathedral wikipage is now beeing thoroughly copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. As major contributor, you may want to have a look at requests from the copy editor here:Talk:St._Stephen's_Cathedral,_Vienna#Copyedit.

Back in 2005, you uploaded several Floor plans in PNG format. Some of them were exported from a vectorial drawing program (e.g. ). If you still have the original files, what do think about converting them to vectorial formats? I will be glad to help you with this conversion to SVG format.

Thanks for your time, Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I, Drboisclair, award User:StanZegel the da Vinci barnstar for his outstanding technical contributions to Wikipedia and for his brilliance as a Renaissance man. --Drboisclair (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

My name is Gert-Jan Zegel. I live in Haarlem in Holland. Originally from IJmuiden (velsen). Great to see that my relatives oversea (wich i never knew about) are so involved in "the family". Just now i discoverd that ZEGEL DAY excisted. Unfortunatly it was 2 days ago. Although i never knew that this day excisted, i would like to thank you for indirectly letting me know. if you would like to contact me, my e-mail is: gert@thesheer.com

86.86.183.146 (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

guaranteed students loans offered thru dept of education equal indentured servitude? walks like a duck, quacks like a duck just a different word for a duck!

cordial regards
John k at ahandsomehomeless@gmail.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.50.110 (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Just so you know, "to gift" is a perfectly respectable English word that goes back to the 17th century - it's the verb from which "gifted" as in "gifted children" etc comes. And it has a slightly different meaning to donate, just as you'd use "gift" and "donation" in slightly different contexts. So I've reverted your edit to Braemar, as gift was more appropriate in the context. Cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"To gift" is not archaic, it's a modern English word. It's maybe got a slightly legalistic flavour, but that's completely appropriate in this context. I appreciate that we should not use complicated words for the sake of it, but nor are we on simple.wikipedia.org here either - and gifted is the word commonly used in (modern) history books to describe such transactions. Le Deluge (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edits to Old Court-New Court controversy. I just have a concern with the cites you added. Specifically, I'm not familiar enough with the abbreviations you've used to locate the references you are citing. Could you please clarify the meanings of "1 J.J.Marsh. (Ky.) 206" and "81 S.W.2d 571 (1935)" so that full bibliographic information can be added for these sources? Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Are these legal cites common enough for most people to understand them? Do the comply with WP:CITE? I'm mainly concerned about the article retaining its GA status. I don't want someone to bring it to WP:GAR and me not be able to explain those cites. Is there an un-abbreviated way to list these reports in the References section in addition to the in-line cites? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the image as per your suggestions. I would appreciate it if you could check it over. Thanks for the help.

Sotakeit (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:TeutonicCoA.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HabsburgStammtafelGruftLeopold37.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stan, my Name is Markus Bingel. I work for the publishing house Reise Know-How Verlag (Germany, www.reise-know-how.de). We are currently producing a tour guide on Vienna, called CityTrip PLUS Wien and by accident found your map of the "Stephansdom". As it is very detailed and well drawn, we would like to ask, whether it would be possible to use it in our book for free. Unfortunatelly the drawing contains several English marks. We would would need an open file like SVG to alter the English notions. Would it be possible to send us such a file? We would be very grateful and of course You would be among the first people to receive a free copy of the book.

Kindest regards

Markus Bingel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.91.116.33 (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stan, I trust that you are doing well. I wonder if you could look in on these two files that some feel should be deleted Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 10. They are the first two entries. Your yea or nay on either or both may be helpful. Will contact you via email with changed contact info. All the best, David--Drboisclair (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StanZegel. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

== Just copy the source code and paste it on the talk page of the user you wish to invite.

This user has been invited WikiProject Prussia please consider checking us out.

==

Kaiser Kitkat (talk)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pekin, Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Confederacy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]