User talk:Hebel/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Hebel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Reginald Vaughn Finley, Sr.
Your changes to Reginald Vaughn Finley, Sr. are being discussed at the talk page. Mr Stephen 10:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Mr Stephen 08:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You added to this article: "If and when HRH Princess Margriet should somehow succeed to the throne, the list of succession will include all of her children and grandchildren now excluded." But her sons Pieter-Christiaan and Floris have still married without seeking the parliament's approval. So they and their children would still be excluded, right? Or is there a rule regarding this that I'm not aware of? Mtcv (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose they would still be excluded. There are no additional rules and the whole thing is basically unchartered territory. It is imaginable however that the above situation might include people that have never been in line to the throne and had no reason or indeed no possibility to seek parliaments approval on their marriage but suddenly find themselves in line to the throne because a grandparent succeeds to the throne. In that case I suppose there would be no reason to exclude them. Would their situation be so different from Floris an Pieter-Christiaan and their offspring? One could think it's an entirely new entitlement for them then. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the clarification. I was wondering what point you were making and thought it might be some rule I hadn't heard of. So it isn't, and the point you're making is the three degrees of kinship rule, and its consequence for people who are currently excluded. I changed the article now, to include that rule more explicitly, and moved your addition down, to where it was already mentioned slightly.
- Regarding Floris and Pieter-Christiaan and their children, I don't agree that it's unchartered territory; the Dutch Constitution is clear in article 28.2, where it says that if a person who can inherit the throne (lit. "kingship"), marries without consent, is excluded. It doesn't say how or via whom this person can inherit the throne, so that's irrelevant for the exclusion. I do agree with you that for the children of Maurits and Bernhard, the situation is more complicated: they're not in the line of succession currently, but could theoretically be in the future, so does that mean they can inherit the throne or not? Luckily it doesn't matter for now, until Anastasia turns 18 in 10 years time. Mtcv (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hebel, an article I recently created, Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, has been nominated for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Given your attention to other Hohenzollern-related articles, please take the time to weigh in and stop its deletion. Thanks again for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia! --Caponer (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I used the tildes but somehow it doesn't work right. I have now changed my preferences and unchecked a box that I think might be the problem there. See if it works. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Aaaah apparently it does. Good then! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Highfields, the two ministers plenipotentiary are not part of the Government of the Kingdom, only the Ministers appointed by the Crown are. The plenipotentiaries are a member of the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom but not of the Government of the Kingdom. That's the difference.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, thats what I originally thought, although I didn't know the details. But I trusted the explanation given to me by another editor. If you say your explanation is more accurate then I'm happy to accept that. Highfields (talk, contribs) 16:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Reginald Vaughn Finley, Sr.
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Reginald Vaughn Finley, Sr.. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reginald Vaughn Finley, Sr. (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Government of the Dutch Republic in exile for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Government of the Dutch Republic in exile is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government of the Dutch Republic in exile until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
4RR on Killing of Travis Alexander
I understand you're trying to help arrest the changes of another editor who you probably feel is taking things too far (clearly they've exceeded 3RR), but you've also exceeded 3RR yourself on the article (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th). Best to stop making reverts immediately as the situation has already been reported to AN:EW. You may even want to consider self-reverting your last revert before it's too late, as any admin reviewing that case may decide to hand out multiple blocks. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I have now reverted my last edit and am staying away from that article for the time being. Thanks!! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of heirs to the Dutch throne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince Henry of the Netherlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Commonwealth realms
Per this edit, the monarchies do have shared elements--the line of succession (though actually a separate line in each country kept identical to all the others) and the person of the monarch. There is not one throne for all; that went out with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for sending me this message. I don't agree entirely. Although the monarch operates in sixteen different constitutional contexts, it is generally acknowledged that the monarchies of the CR's have a shared aspect as well. The Crown is shared AND separate in the CR's and the article about the Commonwealth Realms seems to imply that both aspects of this shared and separate Crown are taken into consideration. The Statute of Westminster speaks of "common allegiance to the Crown". And the royal title for all CR's is still the same (Queen of X and all other realms). I'm not saying that you're wrong necessarily, but I don't think I'm either. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Map of French departments on the Belgium page
Glad to hear it! I have partially incorporated it into the text at provinces of Belgium, but there's more work to be done still! Cheers, Oreo Priest talk 17:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Drmies (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Holy Roman Emperor
Please watch out. You're now actively edit-warring there, so you shouldn't revert any more even if you think you're right. Regards, De728631 (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's a bit overstated. I placed a query in the talk page a month ago and changed now. You reverted without meaningful comment (until I reverted again.) That's not edit warring! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you started this when you reverted Illraute. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- That was earlier that day and about a different piece of text and an unrelated matter than the issue in the succession section which had nothing to do with that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you started this when you reverted Illraute. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
November 2013
- I don't know and fail to understand what you're on about. The medieval Kingdom of Italy was clearly a part of the HRE until 1648. Also there was no area within that Empire where a substantial Turkish speaking minority was heard of. I am also definetly no sockpuppet of anyone! Please be carefull! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
February 2014
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- town of [[Weesp]] and discharges into the [[IJmeer]] (Lake IJ), part of the former [[Zuiderzee]]) at [[Muiden]]. The Amsterdam-Rijnkanaal ([[Amsterdam-Rhine Canal]]) was dug in the Vecht basin.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Posting of personal details by IP editor
Hi. Yes, you're right that this should also be deleted, but because it combines the edits of several different editors it's a more complex issue that needs oversight attention. I suggest you contact the WP:OVERSIGHTers and ask them to handle this. -- The Anome (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
"Hungary pre 1849" section of Ausglech article
The text directly above: 'The status of Kingdom of Hungary before the revolution', and directly beneath it seems not to belong to the subject at hand and somewhat interpretative and contradicting itself. However autonomous Hungary may have been in this period, it was a country included in the 1804 creation and it was restored to that with the Constitution of 1849 (albeit with considerable less autonomy). If Hungary's inclusion was only formal, why is it suggested in other parts in the text that it wasn't included at all? Seems like an exercise in nationalist apologetics to me and I suggest it should go (or be heavily rewritten).Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Autonomous? Why? Has an autonomous territory own fully separated government? Own legislative body , parliament? Own idependent legal system without any common laws (which did not follow to the Roman law, nor Anglo-saxon type, but a third way? Has an autonomous territory own court system? Has an autonomous territory own customs borders and customs system which separated it from all other Habsburg dynastical territories? Has an autonomous territory to sign independently any international commercial/trade agreements with other states? Has an autonomous territory own army , and own separated right for the declaration of war (See Napoleonic wars, When Austrian Empire was in war with France since 1805, Kingdom of Hungary was in war only from 1809.)
Has an autonomous territory the own right to grant separated (non-Austrian) passport for its own people? Has an autonomous territory own separated budget, Hungary spent only 10% of its inland revenues for common dyplomatic and milatary actions? Have you ever read the
Yes, "The status of Kingdom of Hungary before the revolution" section is very necessary and important for many ignorant people, who do not know the details of legal reality, and the status of Hungarian state. Without this important information many readers will believe, that the Hungarians demanded extreme and weird right for themselves, and the "good" Austria made an unique exception with the "nationalist" Hungarians in 1867. In the reality, Hungary only reclaimed its former status and rigts from the Habsburgs, after the Austrians sufferend many defeats from the ITalians French and finally Prussian military powers. Austrian state came close to economic collapse too. Have you ever read the Personal union article|Prudoncty]] (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- User:Prudoncty, please see talk page on the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867#Hungary_pre_1849--Prudoncty (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Consensus re: Peter and his third cousin
It seems the limited consensus is against you regarding Peter and his third cousin. Please respect the consensus. You can always RfC it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Please revert Prudoncty at Austria-Hungary
Please revert him here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austria-Hungary&action=history His edits are not good, and he is also a sockpuppet. 188.167.176.141 (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't know much about economics, so it's better for others than me to judge this revision. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The banned vandal turbo-Slovak IP is here again. He was a banned user , who changed internet provider, and he didn't dare to register an account.--145.236.110.37 (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
May 2015
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Vendôme]] in Navarre and [[Ferdinand II of Portugal|Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha]] in Portugal) or indeed kings consort ([[Francis of Spain]]). He is normally called a [[prince consort]].
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ], [[Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria|Galicia]] joined [[Second Polish Republic|Poland]], while ([[Bukovina]] became a part of [[Kingdom of Romania|Romania]]. [[Duchy of Carniola|Carniola]] and [[
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Habsburg Monarchy
Hey I saw your revert on Habsburg Monarchy. Please note that the Habsburg Monarchy is Austria/Hungary/Bohemia, not Spain. Habsburg Monarchy is not the same as House of Habsburg. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Marcocapelle , come to think of it you're right. 'The Habsburg Monarchy' is a term specifically pertaining to the Austrian lands. I've reverted my edit. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Prince Constantijn and Princess Laurentien are still members of the Royal House.
As seen on the Royal Website. [1]
Royal House membership is based on 2 degrees of kinship.[2] As Prince Constantijn is King Willem-Alexander's brother, he falls within that criteria[3].JasonBux (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)JasonBux
- I know, but the piece of text you removed doesn't say that Constantijn and Laurentien aren't members of the Royal House anymore. It just talks about their children. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- by the Royal orders of 26 october 1937 (Stb. 1937, no. 5) en 2 januari 1967 (Stb. 1967, no. 1)) retain these".</ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Esperanza de Saráchaga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Dutch Republic
According to the article Stadtholder, it counted as a crowned republic. ZFT (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hello ZFT, I see. The article Crowned Republic seems to be about another concept however. Also remember there were large periods when there was no Stadtholder. I didn't like the term autocratic republic either so I removed the word altogether. Perhaps the word crowned can be put back in the infobox between brackets () without a link to that article. That would be fine by me. It could be linked to Stadtholder. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've made it so! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Southern Netherlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Province of Limburg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Grand Duchy of Lithuania
I just want to inform you that Pracar was blocked from editing Grand Duchy of Lithuania article for the next 48 hours. I also want to give you an advice – don't start edit warring with him next time (or anyone else for that matter). If Pracar starts edit warring after his block expires, please notify admins in the report about this user – [1]. Cheers! – Sabbatino (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Sabbatino for your info and advice! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I added the mention of delegated officials because they were mentioned further down in the lead section, without explanation. For example, "In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill." This seemingly contradicts what is said earlier, that royal assent is given by the monarch, not a governor. Mentioning delegation simply resolves this apparent contradiction. I've reworded my addition to clarify your point that it's still an act of the monarch. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for your edit! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Willem-Alexander
What is the line of descent from Augusta? Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hello DrKiernan. It's through Emma of Waldeck and Pyrmont. Her mother was Princess Helena of Nassau, her mother was Princess Pauline of Württemberg (1810–1856), her father was Prince Paul of Württemberg who's mother Duchess Augusta of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was the daughter of Princess Augusta of Great Britain. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of rulers of Croatia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alexander I, Peter I and Peter II. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta
You're likely going to want to say something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia if you don't want others to change it too. Jerod Lycett (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Duarte Pio of Braganza
Duarte Pio is just a pretender to the Portuguese throne and to the titles of the Duchy of Braganza. He's not duke and Portugal is not a Monarchy now. His article should be named Duarte Pio of Braganza and your attitude is not neutral. The correct infobox to use in his article is the Infobox/Pretender. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
support
Hey Hebel,
Just wanted to say that I appreciate your defending that whole group of articles against non-consensual edits by Anjo. I haven't been on wiki for a couple days and won't be for a while but I'm glad to know that at least someone is not just letting Anjo upturn everything just because he doesn't understand the way we operate on Wiki. Anyway, you're a good editor and I appreciate your diplomacy. Thanks, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Cristiano Tomás. I appreciate your message. I had a difficult afternoon / evening with Anjo and his moves. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
When you say, "That's not what it says in the description in the lead," what page are you referring to?Cebr1979 (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- The first sentence of the article in question. A queen-consort is the wife of a king. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that would be a generalisation that needs correcting. I'll also point out, that doesn't have a source.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- There. All fixed.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Empress consort. Click it and see where it re-directs.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Dude, you're seriously edit warring and need to stop. I'm trying to make that page better and you're doing nothing but getting in my way. There is absolutely no problem with explaining the difference between queen consort and empress consort on that page (in fact: it would be better to do so as that's where they both re-direct to... and you know that).Cebr1979 (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've also shown you sources about Brunei and you already know about Bulgaria. Stop with your reverting.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Don't "dude" me please. You have removed Empresses yesterday yourself. And come with reliable sources IN the article for your contentions. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- I "dude" everyone, it wasn't meant however you may have taken it. And, if you would take the time to pay attention before reverting, you would see that I removed empresses from a section that specifically said they were queens, which they were not. I did not, however, remove explanations of the difference between a queen consort and an empress consort.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Don't "dude" me please. You have removed Empresses yesterday yourself. And come with reliable sources IN the article for your contentions. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've also shown you sources about Brunei and you already know about Bulgaria. Stop with your reverting.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Dude, you're seriously edit warring and need to stop. I'm trying to make that page better and you're doing nothing but getting in my way. There is absolutely no problem with explaining the difference between queen consort and empress consort on that page (in fact: it would be better to do so as that's where they both re-direct to... and you know that).Cebr1979 (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Empress consort. Click it and see where it re-directs.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- There. All fixed.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that would be a generalisation that needs correcting. I'll also point out, that doesn't have a source.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Serbs of Croatia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serbs of Croatia. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Hijra
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hijra. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Metapolitefsi
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Metapolitefsi. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:War of 1812
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:War of 1812. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Eshhar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eshhar. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Trưng Sisters
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trưng Sisters. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Question regarding names of politicians
Hello Hebel,
I noticed you're active in British related topics. Can you help me out here? I would like to know the names of three gentlemen who are found in a picture in this link: [2]. The picture is the one with the caption: "Opening of the Governing Council meeting Isola di San Lazzaro degli Armeni..." Now I believe one of them is Prince Charles Philippe, Duke of Anjou, the other is, as I assume, Charles Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton, but the other one I don't know. Who and what is a "the Grand Master"? I'd really appreciate your help if possible. Thanks. P.S. Please ping me. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Étienne Dolet. I'm afraid I can't help you at this moment. I know the late Earl Ferrers had a function in the Orleans branch of that order, but it was not Chancellor and the person depicted on the photograph you mention is not him... I take it you are talking about the gentleman in the light brown jacket. Can't say who he is. When I find something I'll let you know. It's complicated because there have been some schisms and reunifications in that organization. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Name of the Empire
I am quite curious why you've reverted my editing in the article of Austria-Hungary.
--Kronosz 284 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello --Kronosz 284. I have reverted your edit because it seemed to me that the information you added may not have been derived from the source given. Also the words Empire or Biraldom may be problematic when it comes to describe the union between the two countries as it existed between 1867 and 1918. The Union between the two wasn't an Empire or a Kingdom. Austria was an Empire, while Hungary was a Kingdom. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Gerard von Hebel,
Unfortunately, I can only provide you a Hungarian source, a photo that was taken from a book called "A Kiegyezés Lexikon". It is a book, edited by András Cieger, which collects every single source about the Austro-Hungarian Compromise. And one of these sources is a letter written in the november of 1868 by the Emperor himself to Friedrich von Beust Foreign Minister. In the last sentence of it (which I am going to translate for you), Franz Joseph writes the following:
"Furthermore, I've decided, that for the designation of the sum of the kingdoms and countries contitutionally united under my reign, the phrases Osztrák-Magyar Monarchia (=Austro-Hungarian Monarchy) and Osztrák-Magyar Birodalom (=Austro-Hungarian Empire) shall be alternately used."
I can't upload the picture, but if you need it then please provide me an e-mail and I will send it to you.
--Kronosz 284 (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Kronosz 284, sorry for the delay in replying. You do make a legitimate point. My problem with it is that sometimes the word "Empire" denotes a state which is ruled by a Emperor. which the real union created by the Austro-Hungarian compromise wasn't. I admit that Empire can also have an alternate meaning however. More akin to Realm or Imperium. Let's think about something that is not confusing in that sense. If we use the word Empire in the article as a translation of "Birodalom" it must be clear that we don't mean an Imperial state ruled by an Emperor. Francis Joseph was of course an Emperor, but just over Austria and not over Hungary, where he was a king. Please let me know your idea's. I'll think about it as well and will come back to you about this matter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Kronosz 284. For the time being I have restored your editions partially. The only difference being that I replaced the word "Empire" with "Realm". Also because the German translation is "Reich", which denotes a Realm rather than an Imperial state or "Kaiserreich". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Dear Gerard, now I see your point. In Hungarian, our word "Birodalom" unfortunatelly - in principle - has two meanings. One of them is the Realm, while the other one is Empire. We do have an other world for Empire thought, which is Császárság, but the usage of "Birodalom" and "Császárság", (if we are talking about an Empire) only differs because of tradition or even more, how it sounds better. The other problem is the "Realm-version". Yes, we should call Austria-Hungary, like Austro-Hungarian Realm, because the Hungarian word "Birodalom" in this case means Realm. But no-one does call it like that. I've never read it/heard it like that. But anyway, we have the same situation with the British Empire. There is monarch who is an Emperor and a King in the same time and his realm should be called British Realm, but we don't call it like that.
--Kronosz 284 (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Kronosz 284, you're right about that. The difference between the words is there in German too, where it was used (Reich vs. Kaiserreich). Perhaps we could re add the word Empire with a short explanation. I'll think about the wording of that. Thanks for your comment!. I'll be back. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Choucroute
Hi, I saw that you cancelled my edit and then cancelled you cancellation. I was wondering what happened. Personally I know that the edit was right, so I was surprised at first. If you wish to exchange on the subject let me know, even though this is not a very passionating article...😜. --Gabriel HM (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Gabriel HM. Sorry about that. Your edit was right and I was wrong. I mistook you for a sockpuppet of a banned user. Personally I like Choucroute, or as we call it in Holland, zuurkool! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Recent conflict
Please explain what are you trying to do with your latest edits?2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please answer my questions, be more communicative.2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hello 2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0, I'm not against you adapting articles in the name of the guidelines you mention, but it shouldn't be rigid. Some places are multilingual or bilingual. I agree we don't need etymologies for every ancient dialect in the leads to these articles, but there are sensitive cases, which require consensus. Klagenfurt, Strassbourg, Rijeka, and just about anything in Belgium. It's never a good idea to transport a guideline to an indiscriminate mass of articles. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Italians and Slovenes in Rijeka constitute below 2% each, see Demographics section, these languages are hardly part of the bilingualism in the city. As for Strassbourg and Klagenfurt - more likely to be true.2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Then I'll be happy to change my edit on Rijeka. I confused it with Rovinj / Rovigno I think.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Maria Pia and Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha royal family
In all English existing bibliography (see example: CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, that, in page 37, states: «Contending with Nuno was the Manuelist claimant, Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Braganza, and independent monarchists in the opposition...») Maria Pia is cited as member of the Portuguese Royal Family, even as a bastard one, and with Saxe-Coburg surname correctly translated. Also Jean Pailler's book The Pretender: Maria Pia, the would-be queen of Portugal she is mentioned as "H.R.H. Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza, the heiress of portuguese throne and the duchess of Braganza". This should be considered. It is based on bibliographic sources from different authors. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently it has been considered and found to be a fringe view. Even if she were a bastard of Carlos I, which is also a fringe view, she would not be a member of the Portuguese royal family or of the Saxe-Coburg dynasty. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
There are here more sources about the the parental relationship between King Charles I of Portugal and Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza:
- Maria Pia of Braganza is presented in the family tree of King Charles I of Portugal by the renowned historian A. H. de Oliveira Marques in his book História de Portugal - Volume III published in Lisbon, 1982.
- Maria Pia of Braganza was cited as Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Bragança in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012).
- Maria Pia of Braganza was cited as the Princess Maria Pia in HILTON, Ronald; Hispanic American Report (Volume 10), page 576, published by the Stanford University, Department of Hispanic American Studies, in 1957.
- Maria Pia's life and parental relationship with King Charles was presented in a popular biography of Jean Pailler published under the title Maria Pia: A Mulher que Queria Ser Rainha de Portugal (The Pretender: Maria Pia, the would-be queen of Portugal), published by Bertrand Editora in Lisbon, 2006.
- Maria Pia's case was studied and presented openly by the famous Portuguese lawyer Francisco de Sousa Tavares and published under the title O caso de Maria Pia de Bragança (13 de maio de 1983) (The Maria Pia of Braganza's case), in Escritos Políticos I, by Mário Figuerinhas, pages 246–251, in Oporto, 1996.
- The author Isabel Lencastre published a literary work resulting from a study done to all the bastards of the Portuguese royalty and devoted an entire chapter to the case of Maria Pia of Braganza. The book is Bastardos Reais - Os Filhos Ilegítimos dos Reis de Portugal. Lisboa: Oficina do Livro, 2012, pages 211-223.
Thank you for your attention. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I also don’t see you quoting (chapter and verse) where any of these authors explicitly and clearly assert that this lady is indeed Carlos’ daughter and what their evidence or even proof for that is. Rggardless, you have no consensus for adding this matter to the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Some of the invitations for comment regarding galleries for ethnic groups could be considered to be canvassing which isn't really allowed on wikipedia. please see WP:CANVAS for details. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- User:Spacecowboy420, I think you need to read wp:canvas a little better. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's certainly not a complaint from me, and I am not very experienced in wikipedia, so I might be wrong.
When you invited people for comment on the talk page of articles, that as I saw it, was not canvassing, because you would get people with a wide variety of opinions. However, I think when you invite individual editors to comment via their talk pages, that could be considered to be canvassing because you can choose editors who share the same opinions as yourself to comment. But as I said, I'm a new editor, so I am wrong a lot of the time. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Spacecowboy420. That's why I didn't invite individual editors to comment via their talk pages. That would indeed be canvassing. I was canvassed myself a few years ago, you can still see it here somewhere at the top of my talkpage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Apart from this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hahun but it's no big deal, have a nice weekend. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, he initiated the whole thing so he hardly needed any encouragement from me! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm hoping that the discussion leads to clear consensus for all articles. So, I guess it's all good. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Greco-Italian War
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greco-Italian War. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Atlantis
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Atlantis. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Green children of Woolpit
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Green children of Woolpit. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of military occupations
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of military occupations. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Elagabalus
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elagabalus. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Canvassing by User:KIENGIR
User:KIENGIR asked other Hungarian editors to "help him" in his dispute with you: [3] [4]. I don't think that trying to influence a consensus by this method is acceptable. TravisRade (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- User:TravisRade, Thank you, I have seen that and will keep an eye on it. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hebel, you are overreacting it. Since these persons are well-known experts about Hungary and very old an experienced Wikipedians, it is a natural action if you just ad hoc plan to rewrite history! I don't know their nationality anyway, it is totally irrelevant! We will also keep our eyes on you!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC))
Please comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bijeljina massacre
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bijeljina massacre. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Status of Transylvania before 1867
Please check these additions about the status of Transylvania inside the Austrian Empire before 1867. These changes are connected with the debate from Talk:Austrian_Empire#Hungary. 95.141.32.16 (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- '''Bergisch Gladbach''' ({{IPA-de|ˈbɛɐ̯gɪʃ ˈglatbax|-|De-Bergisch_Gladbach.ogg}}, is a town in the [[Cologne/Bonn Region]]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Temporary work
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Temporary work. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
anjo-sozinho
Hi Hebel,
I just wanted to thank you for your proactive actions on preventing Anjo from disrupting wikipedia again - I personally appreciate it and I know the community of editors on Portuguese and royal history must appreciate it too. Cheers my friend, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Cristiano Tomás. If Anjo just could "play the game" in a more realistic, cooperative and diplomatic way....... Oh well... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Canada
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Canada. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:ARBEURO discretionary sanctions alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Katietalk 01:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Aloysius Stepinac
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aloysius Stepinac. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Empire of Austria related articles - Resolution offer for Kingdom of Hungary (1526-1867)
I think first the Kingdom of Hungary (1526-1867) article should be resolved, since it is the most easier as having the less debated content. The offer is for that - with shortened and altered version of your proposal since higher perspectives of Napoleon and the Holy Roman Empire better related to the Austrian Empire article in such detail - (SOURCE are considered to be placed as in earlier proposals) :
INSTEAD OF THIS -> "In 1804 the Austrian Empire was created. This Empire came to comprise all Habsburg lands ruled by Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor (including Hungary), largely without changing the status quo that existed between them before 1804."
THIS ->
"In 1804 the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, who was also the ruler of the dynastic lands of the Habsburg dynasty within and outside the Holy Roman Empire founded the Empire of Austria. This Empire came to comprise all Habsburg lands ruled by Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of the Empire of Austria. After the cessation of the Holy Roman Empire (Kingdom of Hungary was not part of it) the new title of the Habsburg rulers (Emperor of Austria) did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary according to the Hungarian Diet and the proclamation of Francis I in a rescript Hungary was regnum independens, a separate Land as Article X of 1790 stipulated. Therefore no Imperial institutions were involved in it’s internal government. The Imperial matters - foreign policy, defense and state finance - were handled by the monarch as reservata exercised him as the King of Hungary."(KIENGIR (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC))
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Your comments on Mindaugas.
Hi Hebel. I appreciate your comments.
The hillfort in question (Halshany) is real and significant, as are the results of the archeological excavations. Mentioning these artifacts is only right.
Please comment on Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Your removal of the gallery on Punjabis
Hello. Just a friendly reminder that enforcing an RFC is not a 3RR-exemption (see Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is for what is), so if you make one more revert and someone reports you, you risk getting blocked for edit-warring... Thomas.W talk 22:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Thomas.W. I'll leave them to it then. They could have so done without that gallery on that article..... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Category talk:Architecture by country
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Architecture by country. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Poland
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poland. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the infobox contains the list, so I probably did not need to write them out. My bigger issue is the implication that the "Kingdom" was ever a state in Germany, as stated in the opening sentence. The "Kingdom" ceased to exist before "Germany" was created. How about a simpler:
--- The Kingdom of Württemberg (German: Königreich Württemberg) existed from 1805 to 1918, located in the area that is now Baden-Württemberg in modern Germany. ---
This makes it clear that it was not part of modern Germany, and actually puts more focus on the Kingdom's existence by moving the dates ahead of the tie to Germany. (talk about the Kingdom first, then move on to German connection) Thoughts? (I'll check back here) Jmg38 (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Jmg38, Germany is not just a modern country but it was also a constituent part of the Holy Roman Empire (officially a Kingdom itself even) and a geographical entity. And the Kingdom didn't cease to exist at the birth of the modern state we call Germany. It became a component member of it in 1871 and remained so until 1918 when the monarchies of both Germany as a whole and Württemberg were abolished. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk pages
Do you use talk pages? How about let's discuss your reverts? If you refuse to do that, I'll have to report you. I don't know how to di constructive work on WP w/o using talk pages. Sorry. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Disambiguition pages are for articles that include the word in it's title. I've explained myself in other edit summaries but if you want to talk, I'm game! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Reverting twice without using the talk page is a WP no-no, as far as I've learned during all these years of contributing.
- Re: Oden, let's do it there.
- On Prince (disambiguation) you reverted me, without talk, and commented "Not all Princes are royalty". That's exactly what I'm saying. They are not only the "highest aristocracy" either, since royalty is not normally called aristocracy. It's unclear now. Can you word it better? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Hebel, please provide an edit summary, when you remove sourced content to avoid such reverts next time. I agree with your more detailed rationale and will leave the Arnulf quote out - it's really a bit misplaced so early in the lead, and lacks further context. Thank you for spotting this problem. GermanJoe (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hello GermanJoe Thanks for your comment and sorry about the lack of info in the initial edit. I failed to understand at the time what it was about and I assumed it was a mistake by someone. Also I couldn't see what Arnulf had actually said and what the quote was about. I'm curious though.. Otto's grave is in the Magdeburg Dome, and I visited his grave once. So I put the article about him on my watchlist. I can understand why Arnulf would have said something like that. He (Otto) was King of Germany, King of Italy. And Emperor (just not of Italy) Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Muhammad
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muhammad. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The Historical Atlas of Europe
Hi Gerard, I wanted to know if you are the owner of any of these pages? http://home.zonnet.nl/gerardvonhebel/ & http://members.tele2.nl/gerardvonhebel/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riddler (talk • contribs) 08:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Riddler, Yes I am! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Hebel for the reply :) couple of editor from Wikipedia AR wanted to know if we can translate the video here (http://home.zonnet.nl/gerardvonhebel/movie%20and%20comment.htm) and include it in Wikipedia under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License --Riddler (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Riddler, thanks for your interest. I don't know how you will go about translating the video which can be found here on youtube. Changing the English text will be challenging I think. I have thought in the past of making a Dutch or German version, but I'm not sure how to go about that. You can of course also use and alter the maps on the site that can be downloaded and try it there and make a whole new video. All of that is all right and ok with me, but there are a few conditions. The first one is that you mention me "Gerard von Hebel" on whatever venue you publish what you make, as the original author. In a summary or in the text of the video, doesn't matter. Of course you can add your own names if you want. Second is that it is used for educational purposes only. Not for overtly commercial or political reasons. Third is that I would like to see beforehand what you made so I can approve or not (I won't be too difficult about that, I just like to see). I wish you the best of luck with all of this and feel free to contact me when there are any questions or if you are ready to show me what you made, please contact me here or on the comment page of the YouTube video. I'm looking forward to that. Thanks again and keep in touch. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
