This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Greetings Surtsicna, I just wanted to let you know that technically speaking, the Counts of Provence were indisputably lords of the Holy Roman Empire (as subjects of the sub- kingdom of Arles) from 1032 and were, therefore, German nobility. As such, they fit under the "de" category of that title in Template:s-reg, which includes both modern German titles and Imperial titles. It only became a part of France in 1484. Other titles that fit in this category are Count of Savoy, Count Palatine of Burgundy, and Dauphin of Viennois, all of which eventually became a part of France, but not during this time.
I know you don't personally like succession boxes and whatnot, but please stop reverting/undoing perfectly valid edits. Dukes and counts within France are not "regnal titles", they are titles of "French nobility". "King of Naples" in the context of most of the Valois-Angevin kings are "Titles in pretence", not "Regnal titles". The header categories are to make things more clear, even if they take up more space. There are no limits to the size that a succession box can be, so you're dislike of large succession boxes has no merit. I will look into adding a category to s-reg for Holy Roman Empire or Arles titles to fix some of the ambiguity here, but in the meantime, I am reverting the three s-boxes you made "compact", although I have removed the reference to Aragon in the one. That reference was directly drawn from the article itself, but I agree the evidence in the article is weak. If I find more about the pretension, I will try and expand the article (I have an Angevin history book on my desk right now). Thank you for your understanding. – Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions) 21:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Update: A request to add Arleat nobility using the parameter "arl" to Template:s-reg has been filed, pending input by an administrator. Once this is approved, the issue over using "German nobility" to refer to the above-mentioned territories will be resolved. I agree that the use, while technically correct, feels strange, so this fixes it through a mode that is also historically accurate. – Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions) 21:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the topic here.-- Editor FIN ( talk) 13:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I bow to your expertise. Why not start an article on the subject, or translate the French one? Isananni ( talk) 18:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Minor issue concerning the QPQ. But I don't want to hold up giving you a tick. Please fix/clarify. Cheers! 18:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 03:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the fixes. Wanted to know if you have any reference for this assertion: "Aragon was thus the first Iberian kingdom to recognize the independence of Portugal". I don't and am not sure if the marriage per se would imply a recognition of Portugal's independence. Also, on his daughter Branca, I requested a move, but then, on second thoughts, perhaps she is not worthy of a separate article since little is known about her. The source I quoted in her article (copy pasted from the parents' articles) says nothing about her being "lady of Guadalajara". Perhaps she was the lady of a convent in Guadalajara which is not specified in the source, but I don't see how she would have been the Lady of the city or province. Regards, -- Maragm ( talk) 13:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Surtsicna. I was disappointed that you reverted my attempt to improve the syntax in this article’s lede – your diff. Your edit summary says No, not really. That would be: "Catherine of Aragon, who survived to adulthood." The comma makes all the difference.
After my edit, the sentence said "She was the only child of Henry VIII and his first wife Catherine of Aragon to survive to adulthood." I infer from your edit summary that you have no objection to my version of this sentence; but that you have an objection to the explanation I gave in my edit summary - Syntax. This sentence is intended to say Mary, the child, survived to adulthood. In fact it was saying Catherine, the mother, survived to adulthood!
At Wikipedia, all edits should be aimed at improving the quality of the encyclopaedia. We don’t revert other Users’ edits as a means of challenging the content of edit summaries, but that appears to be what you have done. If we disagree with an opinion or the content of an edit summary the appropriate course of action is to raise the matter for discussion – either on a User’s Talk page or on the article’s Talk page.
Let’s assume that you are correct and the absence of a comma represents complete mitigation of any difficulty in the syntax. That doesn’t alter the fact that to me, and presumably hundreds of others like me, the syntax appears amateurish and in need of improvement. You can’t be there, looking over the shoulder of everyone who reads this article, in order to explain that you are technically correct, and to explain the significance of the missing comma.
I believe my version of the sentence is superior to the version I found when I first read the article. If you believe my version is inferior to the long-standing version please raise the matter for discussion on the Talk page. Many thanks. Dolphin ( t) 11:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The paragraph is a bit awkward. Her mother is identified up to that point as Beatrice of Lorraine. Her sister is the last Beatrice mentioned before the discussion of a marriage. One looks first for the word "had", then back to find the date of her sister's death (which is "the next year"), then wonders in passing if Godfrey was a necrophiliac. But if you like it, leave it. Mannanan51 ( talk) 01:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
On 8 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gisela Januszewska, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Austrian physician Gisela Januszewska, famed for her work among Bosnian Muslim women and highly decorated for her World War I service, died in the Theresienstadt concentration camp? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gisela Januszewska. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
this old image from cca 1897, scan from the book, uploaded at Flickr and commons.wikimedia.org, is actually erroneously designated as "Ruins of Jajce" !
Here's painting of Jajce with citadel and surroundings, from around same place and time (artist: Tivadar Kosztka Csontvary, completion date: 1903 - just six years later): http://www.wikiart.org/en/tivadar-kosztka-csontvary/waterfall-at-jajce-1903
Or old photo, only retouched in fake colors, from around same period (end of the 19.century) as disputed image: http://www.sarajevofunkytours.com/uploadSlike/velike/jajce_2.jpg
Factual location on this historic image (photo) of the ruined fortress is village of Prusac near Donji Vakuf in Bosnia (ruined fortress is also called Prusac), some 50 miles upstream of the Vrbas river from town and (real) fortress of Jajce.
Jajce was developed medieval town with extensive walls and large citadel, both of which can be seen well preserved today, centuries before any kind of photography existed, but even upon closer examination you should be able to see quite a few differences in surroundings, size of the fortress itself, proportions of the hill, and on (Googled) pictures of Jajce you should also notice two rivers and large waterfall right under the hill, in the middle of medieval walls, and no wide plane in sight because town is located in the hart of steep gorge.-- Santasa99 ( talk) 02:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind, however you need to understand that photo of "modern" Jajce, which I found on commons.wikimedia.org and placed in article, is actually photo of old town core, mostly, and only modern thing in that pic are new rooftops and facades with few new family houses.
In other words, photo contains at least 3/4 of medieval buildings (one "new" building visible in the photo is largest building in the center, which is museum form Austro-Hungarian period). Jajce, even prior to Ottoman conquest (prolonged period between 1463 and 1528), was already large and developed town (speaking in context of that region during medieval period), with huge town walls, where citadel was only that, part of the larger urban structure - citadel within walled city. Only significant buildings which didn't exist prior to Ottomans arrival are mosques.
You won't deny viewer of complete impression if you leave photo of "modern" town, but you can use something like those images for which I provided a links in my previous post.
As you can see in these old pictures, core of Jajce, more precisely walled old town, was pretty the same since the times of the last king and Ottoman conquest, as it was in 19. century, as it is today. Cheers!-- Santasa99 ( talk) 21:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hallo Surtsicna,
You wrote me right when I was downloading the pictures... Actually, the picture quality is not perfect, but unfortunately the camera that I should have used that day did not show up together with his owner because of a flu... :-( Anyway, I will ask to my Roman friend to take this shot again with her professional camera! :-) Of course, feel free to move, change the caption and resize the picture! Cheers from Helvetia,
Alex2006 (
talk) 19:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
This was including all these deeply obscure folk in the "royal consorts of England" category. I have fixed that but it now seems to add a navbox category to the articles, which you may want to fix. Johnbod ( talk) 21:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Surtsicna- I'm sorry if my edit summary at scandalized you. In answer to your subsequent revert summary:
And why is that so? Why clutter the infobox and article source with parameters that are not used or will never be used? There is a number of parameters not included here (because they will never be used), such as Temple name, Era name, Posthumous name...)
I did not mean to cause alarm or distress on the part of other editors. As I did not have the time to research the accuracy of the previous editor's assertion ("Predecessor" and "successor" to a queen or king consort is never used, in any article.
), and knowing that editor as having a
history of making edits that call for review/repair/supervision, I erred on the side of partially reverting his unilateral move, while maintaining the content of the infobox as he wished it. If you know his assertion to be correct, I thank you for correcting my error.
Eric
talk 17:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I was advised to contact you on this subject -- forgive me if this advice was incorrect. The table over at List of Hungarian monarchs notes that Vladislaus I (aka Władysław III of Poland) is a "Fourth great-grandson of Béla IV". I've been poking around his genealogy a bit and don't see any obvious lines of descent from Bela to him -- it all seems to be Jagellions and Rurikids and even though I know the Arpads and Rurikids intermarried I can't find a direct link. Does you know what this refers to? -- Jfruh ( talk) 20:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
After adding some references to Ralph I, Count of Vermandois, I noticed that his first wife Eleanor is mentioned as daughter of Stephen II, Count of Blois. As of last night's searching, all sources I found pertaining to Eleanor depict her as a niece of Theobald II, Count of Champagne, a son of Stephen II, Count of Blois. One source states that Eleanor probably was the daughter of William, Count of Sully, Theobald's older brother. Would you happen to be able to shed some light on this? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Henry II, Duke of Bavaria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 17:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Catherine of Bosnia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 ( talk) 09:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The article Catherine of Bosnia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Catherine of Bosnia for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 ( talk) 09:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The article Catherine of Bosnia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Catherine of Bosnia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 ( talk) 08:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
This Template:Did you know nominations/Sajida Zaidi, Zahida Zaidi is pending your final review. Thanks.-- Nvvchar. 14:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
On 20 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ponsa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Peregrin Saxon was the first Bishop of Bosnia to reside in Bosnia since Ponsa was driven out by heretics a century earlier? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ponsa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Ponsa), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
WormTT( talk) 21:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
On 20 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Peregrin Saxon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Peregrin Saxon was the first Bishop of Bosnia to reside in Bosnia since Ponsa was driven out by heretics a century earlier? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Peregrin Saxon), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
WormTT( talk) 21:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The Good Article Barnstar | ||
For Catherine of Bosnia. — Calvin999 09:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!
Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
noble ladies | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 464 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
you're the subject of a WP:3RR report here [1] - thanks LavaBaron ( talk) 01:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Vladislav of Bosnia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
On 11 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vladislav of Bosnia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Bosnian prince Vladislav was passed over in succession for unknown reasons, but nevertheless ruled with his wife Jelena in the name of their minor son Tvrtko? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vladislav of Bosnia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Vladislav of Bosnia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 12:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
On 11 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jelena Šubić, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Bosnian prince Vladislav was passed over in succession for unknown reasons, but nevertheless ruled with his wife Jelena in the name of their minor son Tvrtko? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Jelena Šubić), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 12:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
On 28 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anđeo Zvizdović, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that friar Anđeo Zvizdović, who negotiated the promise of freedom of religion to the Bosnians (charter pictured), is credited with the survival of Roman Catholicism in Bosnia and Herzegovina? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anđeo Zvizdović. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Anđeo Zvizdović), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
On 28 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ahdname of Milodraž, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that friar Anđeo Zvizdović, who negotiated the promise of freedom of religion to the Bosnians (charter pictured), is credited with the survival of Roman Catholicism in Bosnia and Herzegovina? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Ahdname of Milodraž), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Why did you undo my changes concerning Tvrtko I, even though my sources were varied, international and unbiased, but you still removed them without a question. I wrote that he was the King of Serbs and Bosnia, and you changed it back to King of Bosnia and Serbia, claiming that it was cleared in the main body of the text. But the problem is that the title King of Serbia is entirely incorrect, and therefore, shouldn't even be on the page. I mean, the LAND/STATE and NATION are different things. Tvrtko was not the ruler of Serbia, because there was NO SERBIA in that particular time period, ever since the death of Tsar Urosh in 1371! There were several petty states ruled by Serbs (for example, Knez Lazar's Moravian state, Đurađ's Zeta, Marko Kraljević's land, Vuk Branković's state, Konstantin Dragaš's land, etc.). That's why, when Tvrtko proclaimed himself King, he added of the Serbs in his title, because it encompasses the people, whether they live in Bosnia, Zeta, Macedonia, Moravska, or any other petty state. Here's an example... when Tsar Dušan proclaimed himself the Emperor/Tsar, his full title was Emperor of Serbs and Greeks. Why Greeks and not Rhomeia or Roman Empire, as was the name of the Greek country? Simple - because he didn't conquer the WHOLE Greek state. But since Dušan's empire had a lot of Greeks in it (from conquered territories), it was logical for him to add of the Greeks to his title. Same thing with Tvrtko - he could claim the title of the Serbs but not of Serbia, since he didn't rule over all the Serbian states. Furthermore, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drevnibor ( talk • contribs) 09:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Surtsicna,
do you have any interest in Bosnian or ex-Yugoslav history other than medieval? I might need your help with an imminent issue. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK) 11:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar | ||
For your significant contributions to royalty and nobility related articles. Keep up the good work. Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC) |
Thank you, Antidiskriminator! Surtsicna ( talk) 21:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Sole reason I reverted you is because I saw "Crown Prince Naruto" and immediately assumed you were a troll rofl. Didn't know you were just trying to shorten his title. -- Booyahhayoob ( talk) 07:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The Bosnia and Herzegovina Barnstar of National Merit | ||
Specifically for exceptional work on Pavao Dragičević but, more generally, for ongoing good work creating biographies on historical personages from the whole of the Balkans such as Jaquinta, etc. LavaBaron ( talk) 10:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC) |
Hey! Would like to know your opinion on Talk:Constantine II of Greece regarding the abrupt mention of "He was born a Prince of Denmark" after the first sentence in the article and its overall relevancy to be mentioned in the lead at all. Many thanks! :) -- Re5x ( talk) 11:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
On 21 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jaquinta of Bari, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in order to secure the crown for her sons, the Dioclean queen Jaquinta of Bari had a brother-in-law beheaded, another blinded and castrated, a nephew poisoned and another beheaded? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Jaquinta of Bari), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Pavao Dragičević at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 00:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
On 30 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pavao Dragičević, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bishop Pavao Dragičević may have selected Elijah as patron saint of Bosnia and Herzegovina due to his veneration by the country's Muslims, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pavao Dragičević. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Pavao Dragičević), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
I appreciated your proactive editing. You directly fixed the problems at Shit Museum, and avoided cryptic criticisms at Template:Did you know nominations/Shit Museum. Your approach to WP:DYK is right on. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC) |
Hello Surtsicna, the fact that Queen Emma was Regent for her husband for a few days and afterwards eight years for her daughter is not seriously in doubt. Neither is the fact that she was generally known as the Queen mother in the Netherlands after her Regency. Neither is the fact that she was known as HM the Queen of the Netherlands during her husbands life. Just for consistency, you have yourself added this edit where you don't see any reason to call Ioanna of Bulgaria a dowager. What is the dowager thing based on? She was generally known as the Queen Mother and of course officially as Queen Emma, when she stopped being HM the Queen. Your source is not the website of the Dutch Parliament, but the website for a University project that publishes the text of primary sources. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 20:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Surtsicna, I found a few. I will concede the "dowager" aspect because it was used literally in law forms she signed in her capacity as Regent. She is called "Queen-Dowager and Regent of the Kingdom" there (which begs the question what she might have been called in the three days she was Regent but not yet dowager...). These law forms (introductions to a law) do not of course constitute a formal establishment of a 'form of address'. I found a newspaper articles addressing her as "H.M the Queen-Regent", "H.M. Queen Emma" and "H.M. the Queen-Mother" for different periods during her widowhood. But I'm pretty sure that "Queen-Mother" never was a formal title or a formal 'form of address'. I'm not going to soil your talkpage with refs at this point, until I can find out how to put them in a single block. I still don't think matters concerning the form of address were very well regulated at the time. For our present Queen consort it has only been slightly better.... I'll be back on this. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 16:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)