Disputatio Usoris:Albert Krantz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Salve, Albert!

Gratus in Vicipaediam Latinam acciperis! Ob contributa tua gratias agimus speramusque te delectari posse et manere velle.

Cum Vicipaedia nostra parva humilisque sit, paucae et exiguae sunt paginae auxilii, a quibus hortamur te ut incipias:

Si plura de moribus et institutis Vicipaedianis scire vis, tibi suademus, roges in nostra Taberna, vel roges unum ex magistratibus directe.

In paginis encyclopaedicis mos noster non est nomen dare, sed in paginis disputationis memento editis tuis nomen subscribere, litteris impressis --~~~~, quibus insertis nomen tuum et dies apparebit. Quamquam vero in paginis ipsis nisi lingua Latina uti non licet, in paginis disputationum qualibet lingua scribi solet. Quodsi quid interrogare velis, vel Taberna vel pagina disputationis mea tibi patebit. Ave! Spero te "Vicipaedianum" fieri velle! --Xaverius 09:23, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias pro pagina de imperatore Russiae! Amabo te, utere numeris Arabicis (non MDCCCLXXXI sed 1881). Vide Vicipaedia:De orthographia#Numerorum usus. Gratias! --UV 16:37, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tres Ludovici XI[fontem recensere]

Amice, movisti commentarium Ludovicus XI (rex Franciae) ad Ludovicus XI, et tunc dixisti: "Kein Grund für Hyperbürokratie, es gibt nur einen Louis XI." Negasne ergo vixisse Ludovicum XI, Comitem Oettingen, et Ludovicum XI, Magnum Ducem von Hessen und bei Rhein?! IacobusAmor 21:49, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for English, I'm able to read, but I'm not able to write Latin. Louis XI of France was the only Louis XI to find in this list of rulers. 1. If you were about this guy, he has very little importance and he definitely does not deserve an article in WP. 2. Althought there were a number of rulers of Grand Duchy of Hesse with the name of Ludwig, I couldn't find Ludwig XI among them. Cf. also de:Ludwig XI., pl:Ludwik XI, sr:Луј XI. — Albert Krantz ¿? 23:34, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC).[reply]
De: "he has very little importance and he definitely does not deserve an article in WP."—That's your opinion, and some others may agree with you; but Jimmy Wales, our founder, regards it as old-fashioned, paper-based, elitist thinking, and has said that everybody deserves an article in Wikipedia. Furthermore, you've unilaterally made the mos vicipaedianus more inconsistent. Vide Ludovicus X (rex Franciae). IacobusAmor 00:56, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ludovicus X is ambiguous, on WP we have articles Louis X of Bavaria and Louis X of France. Cf.: de:Ludwig X. (Frankreich), pl:Ludwik X Kłótliwy. Ludovicus XI is not. — Albert Krantz ¿? 03:50, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Not yet, perhaps. Let's not defend the failure to achieve completion. IacobusAmor 04:07, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutationes tuas reverti quia haec commentatio de figura mythologica Gargantua disserit, minime de libris Rabelaesi. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:40, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for English, I'm able to read, but I'm not able to write Latin. You are right, I was a little inattentive. But the interwiki links you've kept in the article are also about the Rabelais book. — Albert Krantz ¿? 23:34, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC).[reply]