Kommunal.az

Here are some links I find useful:

• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Utilities
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Village pump
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
• Wikipedia:IRC channel
• Wikipedia:Mailing lists
• Wikipedia:Current polls

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 20:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Känsterle,

Like I asked you yesterday on your talk page at Dutch wikipedia, could you please solve the double redirects on Leopold William of Austria (10) and Alfred I Fürst zu Windisch-Graetz (17). I already solved the double redirect you left on Louise of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg, trying to be helpful. --Francis Schonken 08:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia. Arrigo 15:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you voted on Sigismund II Vasa, maybe you would like to vote or discuss Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło ? Juraune 08:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You put the template "factual accuracy disputed" above the Jan Kappeyne van de Coppello article, but you have not explained why. What's wrong with the article? C mon 08:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I forgot. The article suggests he was the first Prime Minister, which is not the case (just check Prime Minister of the Netherlands). Känsterle 08:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Het is zo gegaan als Tuvic opmerkt: ik zou enorm graag hebben dat je me dan deblokkeert, alsjeblieft. Nota bene heeft "Limowreck" gelijk: ik wou niet provoceren => dat kopje moet apart staan, en dat staat nog altijd zo, dus mijn terechte wijziging daar blijft staan, maar jij blokkeert mij nu zogezegd daarvoor, én ik loog evenmin, want na die waarschuwing verbeterde ik niet meer. Extremely sexy 13:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Känsterle,

I disagree with your statement that it would be nonsense to put Queen Juliana and Beatrix in the houses of Mecklenburg and Lippe. Just the fact that female inheritance of the regnal title is allowed, does not mean that the family name (e.g. the House) gets inherited the same way. In fact, on the page of Queen Beatrix herself, it says:

"Patrilineal descent is the principle behind membership in royal houses, as it can be traced back through the generations - which means that if Beatrix were to choose an historically accurate house name it would be Lippe, as all her male-line ancestors have been of that house."

Compare with the British King Edward VII, who also was of a different House, after Queen Victoria inherited, as a female, the british throne.

However, as it also says on the page of Queen Beatrix, the House of Orange-Nassau could be seen as a cadet branch of the House of Lippe (just as it was a cadet branch of the House of Mecklenburg during the reign of Queen Juliana. Therefore you are correct to chance the template. Rysz 07:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the Dutch Royal Family is and has ever been Orange-Nassau. This so called "historically accurate house name" is not supported by any laws. Känsterle 10:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the law, I've juse done some checking in old 'Koninklijke Besluiten' (Royal Degrees), and you're right, there is no law supporting any other house name. In fact, the name Orange-Nassau, is by law the name of the royal house. (KB 08-feb-1901). Thank you for correcting me.Rysz 12:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good compromise here. Thanks. User:Krator (t c) 21:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BeideSicilien.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Kelly ^hi! 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you contest the move you should do a requested move, not unilaterally move it without discussion or any reason given. DrKiernan (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alfred I, Fürst zu Windisch-Graetz. Since you had some involvement with the Alfred I, Fürst zu Windisch-Graetz redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

01:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

15:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]